State court grants anti-SLAPP motion, in part, dismisses six of nine causes of action against Simmonds & Narita client
A state court in Los Angeles County granted Simmonds & Narita’s client’s special motion to strike a complaint, C.C.P. § 425.16, (“anti-SLAPP motion”), and struck the plaintiffs fraud, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and FDCPA claims. The plaintiff alleged that the client, a national bank, had intentionally failed to honor an agreement to resolve the plaintiff’s unpaid debt that had been negotiated between counsel. The court found the claims arose from protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and that plaintiff did not have a probability of prevailing on the merits. The plaintiff also failed to show sufficient evidence of malice or bad faith. The FDCPA claims failed because they were based on communications between counsel which, under Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions, LLC, 499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2007), the court held were not actionable.