On Friday, June 27, 2014, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the anti-SLAPP law does not apply to causes of action arising from attorneys’ withdrawal of settlement funds because that withdrawal was neither communicative nor related to an issue of public interest.
In Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc., defendant attorneys appealed a trial court order denying their anti-SLAPP motion as to three causes of action, for breach of contract, negligence, and declaratory relief. The plaintiff insurance company alleged that, among other things, the attorneys breached an earlier settlement agreement “by disbursing the settlement proceeds without the signature and/or consent of [Old Republic].”
With respect to the issue of whether or not the anti-SLAPP statute applied to plaintiff’s claims, the court stated: “In answering this question we apply two principles that have perhaps not been as clearly articulated in the case law as they should be: (1) in determining whether a cause of action arises from conduct protected by the statute, the focus is on the wrongful, injurious conduct identified in the complaint, and whether that conduct comes within the statute’s description of protected conduct; and (2) unless the wrongful conduct is communicative in character, it is protected by the statute only if it was undertaken in connection with an issue of public importance.”
The court held that “Because the withdrawal of funds was . . . neither communicative nor related to an issue of public interest, the trial court properly denied” the anti-SLAPP motion.