Benasra

Benasra v. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP

Caution
123 Cal. App. 4th 1179·20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 621·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1863·2004 Daily Journal DAR 13564·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9959
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 5, 2004B166653, B167512California3,974 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

In this case, we are called on to decide whether our recent decision in Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 624 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ], which held that a claim for legal malpractice is not subject to a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute (section 425.16), applies to the situation where the claim is attorney breach of duty of loyalty. We conclude that Jespersen applies, and that the motion to strike should not have been granted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is the second time these parties have been before us. In the prior case we were asked to determine whether res judicata foreclosed the claim of appellants Michel Benasra, Denys Goulin, and Pour Le Bebe, Inc. (PLB), for breach of duty of loyalty against respondent Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp (MS&K), who had represented appellants’ opponent, Guess, Inc., in an arbitration. The trial court had granted a defense motion for summary judgment based on the claim preclusion aspect of res judicata, because the arbitration panel had denied a motion to disqualify brought by appellants, thereby impliedly ruling that no breach of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.