Daily Blast October 28, 2016

This case arose from a dispute between homeowners and a tenant who refused to vacate their property. (Slip opn., p. 3.) The tenant sued the homeowners and added their counsel (Dowling) as a defendant, alleging that he aided and abetted unlawful entries into her apartment, agreed to conceal evidence, and lied to opposing counsel about the alleged entries. (Id. at p. 13.) Dowling filed an anti-SLAPP motion. (Id. at p. 7.) The trial court denied the motion and imposed sanctions. Dowling appealed. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal reversed. (Slip opn., p. 28.) It held that “conclusory allegations of conspiracy or aiding and abetting do not deprive [Dowling’s] actions of their protected status.” (Id. at p. 18.) The court reasoned that allegations of conspiracy or aiding and abetting are “no more than legal conclusions” and do not shift the analysis from Dowling’s actions to the actions he allegedly assisted. (Id. at pp. 15-16, fn. 8, 18.) Because Dowling’s actions – advising clients and communicating with opposing counsel – were unquestionably protected as petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, the tenant’s causes of action against Dowling arose from protected activity. (Id. at pp. 13-14, 17.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate