Zhang v. Jenevein, 31 Cal. App. 5th 585

Tang Energy (Jenevein) and AVIC USA (Zhang) were parties to a Soaring Wind LLC operating agreement with an arbitration clause covering disputes about breaches of the agreement, including exclusivity.
Jenevein secretly recorded (1) an in-person restaurant conversation and (2) a multi‑party conference call with Zhang, preparing evidence for anticipated arbitration over alleged competing subsidiaries.
Tang Energy introduced the recordings in arbitration; the arbitrators awarded Tang Energy and Soaring Wind over $65 million, and a federal district court later affirmed the award.
After the arbitration, Zhang and AVIC USA sued Jenevein for invasion of privacy and violations of Penal Code §§ 632 and 637.2 for secretly recording confidential communications.
Jenevein moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing the recordings and their use in arbitration were protected petitioning/free‑speech activity; the trial court denied the motion.
The court of appeal affirmed, holding private contractual arbitration is not a judicial or other "official proceeding authorized by law" for § 425.16 purposes, so the recordings/use were not protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recording private communications and using them in arbitration is protected activity under § 425.16	Zhang: The claims do not arise from protected activity because arbitration is not a judicial/official proceeding; recordings were wrongful acts, not petitioning	Jenevein: Recording and using the tapes in arbitration were acts in connection with a judicial/official proceeding (petition) and thus anti‑SLAPP protected	Held: Contractual arbitration is not a judicial or "official proceeding authorized by law" under § 425.16, so the acts were not protected; anti‑SLAPP motion properly denied
Whether the litigation privilege or related doctrines convert arbitration‑connected acts into protected activity	Zhang: Litigation privilege differs from anti‑SLAPP protection; privilege does not automatically make conduct protected under § 425.16	Jenevein: The litigation privilege language overlaps and should support anti‑SLAPP protection for arbitration‑related statements/use	Held: Litigation privilege and anti‑SLAPP statute serve different purposes; privilege does not expand § 425.16 protection to private arbitration acts

Century 21 Chamberlain & Assocs. v. Haberman, 173 Cal.App.4th 1 (2009) (private contractual arbitration is not a judicial or official proceeding for anti‑SLAPP purposes)
Mission Beverage Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC, 15 Cal.App.5th 686 (2017) (contractual arbitration generally is not an "official proceeding authorized by law")
MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich, 21 Cal.App.5th 167 (2018) (arbitrator is not a judicial body; arbitration not covered by § 425.16 subdivisions at issue)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (explaining the two‑step anti‑SLAPP burden and review standard)
Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 909 (2015) (arbitration is an alternative that bypasses judicial proceedings)