Defendant attorneys appealed an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Procedural Posture

Defendant attorneys appealed an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied their special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, plaintiff court reporting company's complaint for breach of contract and common counts.

 

Overview: Equip yourself with the most efficient business lawyer in LA

The court reporting company sought to recover unpaid fees for its services. The court held that although the complaint was filed after court reporting services had been provided in the underlying cases, the acts alleged in the complaint did not arise from the underlying lawsuits for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. The allegations referring to arguably protected litigation activity were only incidental to the causes of action, which arose from the nonprotected activity of not paying overdue invoices. Not all attorney conduct in connection with litigation, or in the course of representing clients, was protected activity under § 425.16, subd. (b)(1). Even if the court reporting company had improperly named the attorneys as defendants in their individual capacities, rather than their professional corporations, such an error did not bring the case within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court imposed sanctions for a frivolous appeal under Code Civ. Proc., § 907, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1), because the case was merely a simple contract dispute; moreover, one of the attorneys previously had been sanctioned for making a similar argument on appeal in another case.

 

Outcome

The court affirmed the order and imposed a sanction for bringing a frivolous appeal.