Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh

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


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.

Published In: Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Civil Remedies Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Constitutional Law Updates

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