Legal Opinion
Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 18, 2003No. B163416PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HASTINGS, J.
Appellants, attorneys sued for litigation related malpractice, filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the malpractice action does not qualify for treatment under section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute. We conclude the trial court did not err. The alleged malpractice did not arise out of the attorneys’ First Amendment right to petition. Rather the malpractice alleged is appellants’ negligent failure to protect their clients’ rights in the underlying action.
BACKGROUND
Resp…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.California Supreme Court · 2017
- 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
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Freeman v. SchackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.