Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh

Court Rules that Attorney's Demand Letter is Not Protected under Anti-SLAPP Law

more+
less-

Following the prior decision of Flatley v. Mauro, the California Court of Appeal in Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh finds that a demand letter from an attorney which threatens criminal prosecution is not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. Of interest, the court held that the facts need not be as egregious as those in Flatley; it is enough that the conduct amounts to extortion. All that is needed for extortion is a demand for money coupled with a threat of criminal action. That is true even where the person would be free to report the crime.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Decision | State, 9th Circuit, California | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Aaron Morris, Morris & Stone, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×