Legal Opinion
Benasra v. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 5, 2004No. B166653, B167512PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CURRY, J.
In this case, we are called on to decide whether our recent decision in Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 624 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 715], which held that a claim for legal malpractice is not subject to a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute (section 425.16), 1 applies to the situation where the claim is attorney breach of duty of loyalty. We conclude that Jespersen applies, and that the motion to strike should not have been granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is the second time…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Anderson v. EatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. DakarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Freeman v. SchackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & HammertonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.