Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP (Jan. 27, 2022, G059477)
The defendant in an employment case filed a cross-complaint alleging extortion and intentional interference. The cross-complaint claimed that (a) during pre-litigation settlement negotiations plaintiff’s attorney alleged the defendant had engaged in unrelated illegal activities, and (b) plaintiff’s attorney stated she would communicate these allegations to the company set to merge with the defendant if she did not receive a response to her settlement demands. Plaintiff’s attorney eventually sent the allegations of illegal activity to the acquiring company which sued to rescind its merger agreement with the defendant.
The plaintiff moved to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing that the attorney’s statements were made during settlement negotiations and thus were protected. The trial court granted the motion to strike as to both causes of action.
The Court of Appeal reversed as to the extortion cause of action, holding the attorney’s pre-litigation statements constituted illegal extortion and were therefore beyond the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court’s decision conflicts with Malin v. Singer (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, which the court declined to follow.
