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.

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

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 »