LAURA ESMERELDA CONTRERAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURTIS DOWLING et al., Defendants and Appellants., 5 Cal. App. 5th 394

Summary

ISSUE: Whether, in a tenant's suit against her landlords and their attorney arising out of allegedly illegal entries into the tenant's apartment, the trial court erred in denying the attorney's anti-SLAPP motion. HOLDINGS: [1]-The tenant's cause of action against the attorney arose out of protected activity, as the only actions the attorney himself was alleged to have taken were all communicative acts by an attorney representing clients in pending or threatened litigation, and such acts were unquestionably protected by Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; [2]-The tenant could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of her cause of action, as the attorney's communicative acts were within the scope of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)'s litigation privilege; [3]-Because the attorney's anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous, sanctions against him were inappropriately imposed.