Legal Opinion
Paul v. Friedman
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 29, 2002No. B142814PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOLAND, J. *
Summary
This case involves the question whether a lawyer’s investigative acts in the course of prosecuting his clients’ arbitration claims against a securities broker were acts in furtherance of his free speech rights within the meaning of California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute.
We conclude the lawyer’s acts alleged in the broker’s subsequent lawsuit did not fall within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute, because the acts alleged did not occur in connection with an issue under consideration or review in the arbitration.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Wilcox v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & SusmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Paul for Council v. HanyeczCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Martinez v. Metabolife International., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Neville v. CHUDACOFFCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Scott v. Metabolite International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. v. SteinbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.