Important Free Speech Victory at the Fourth District Court of Appeal 

Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court and Orders Anti-SLAPP Motion Granted 

Free speech and the constitutional right to petition the courts remain fundamental protections within California’s legal system. In a significant appellate victory, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One reversed a San Diego Superior Court ruling and directed the trial court to grant an anti-SLAPP motion filed on behalf of an attorney on trial. 

Attorney Stefan Seper assisted Frank J. Polek of Polek Law in the successful defense of a colleague during the appeal. The case involved claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from communications made in the course of a contentious business dispute. 

A. The Dispute. 

The underlying lawsuit stemmed from a conflict between multiple parties in Imperial Beach, California. During the dispute, the accused attorney represented her clients in an escalating disagreement over subcontractors at a work site. As litigation became increasingly likely, counsel for the parties exchanged correspondence concerning property access and the selection process of subcontractors. 

After receiving a request to refrain from the job site, one particular subcontractor filed suit against the accused attorney, alleging that statements made by her in communications with opposing counsel were defamatory and otherwise actionable. 

The accused attorney sought representation from Frank Polek and Stefan Seper, who filed an anti-SLAPP motion. When the trial court denied the Defense’s anti-SLAPP motion, the appeal commenced thereafter. 

B. The Court of Appeal’s Decision. 

The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court concluded that the communications at issue were protected under California’s anti-SLAPP statute because they were made in connection with anticipated litigation and related directly to issues involved in the business dispute. 

The court emphasized that California courts have long adopted an expansive view of litigation-related activities entitled to anti-SLAPP protection. Communications made in preparation for, or anticipation of, litigation can qualify as protected petitioning activity where they concern the subject matter of an impending dispute. 

Applying those principles, the Court of Appeal determined that the disputed statements were made while the parties were actively navigating enforcement issues and shortly before an action was filed. The court found that the communications were sufficiently connected to the anticipated litigation to fall within the protections of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. 

C. A Strong Defense of Constitutional Rights. 

Because the statements constituted protected activity, the Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and directed the trial court to enter a new order granting the motion. The court further held that Defendants was entitled to recover her appellate costs. 

California’s anti-SLAPP statute serves an important purpose: protecting individuals, attorneys, and litigants from lawsuits that target constitutionally protected speech and petitioning activity. This decision reinforces the principle that attorneys must be able to advocate for their clients and communicate concerning pending or anticipated litigation without undue fear of retaliatory lawsuits. 

Stefan Seper, working alongside Frank J. Polek, helped secure this significant appellate victory on behalf of the Defendant. The result underscores the importance of vigorous appellate advocacy and the continuing role of California’s anti-SLAPP statute in safeguarding free speech and the constitutional right to petition the courts. 

Need a Consult? 

Contact Hoffman | Forde today at (619) 614-2172 or intake@hoffmanforde.com. Our firm’s attorneys offer clear, strategic guidance to help with any landlord or tenant related issues.   

The information in this post is considered attorney advertising under applicable California law. The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.