|
p0691 An anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted in an action for misrepresentation based on statements made by an attorney to an employee of an adverse party regarding litigation in which they were involved because the Litigation Privilege prevents liability from being imposed for such statements, and amendment of the complaint to eliminate that claim during the pendency of the anti-SLAPP motion did not require denial of the motion.CitationSYLMAR v PUEBLO (Amended SLAPP) 122 CA4 1049 [See: CCP 425.16; CivC 47(b); Moore v Hong Liu 69 CA4 745, T/AT 3/99; Kyle v Carmon 71 CA4 901, T/AT 6/99; Pfeiffer Venice v Bernard 101 CA4 211, T/AT 9/02; White v Lieberman 103 CA4 210, T/AT 12/02; Silberg v Anderson 50 C3 205]
|
|
