Jespersen

Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 624·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1875·2003 Daily Journal DAR 13850·7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10978
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 2003B163416California3,018 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Appellants, attorneys sued for litigation related malpractice, filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the malpractice action does not qualify for treatment under section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute. We conclude the trial court did not err. The alleged malpractice did not arise out of the attorneys’ First Amendment right to petition. Rather the malpractice alleged is appellants’ negligent failure to protect their clients’ rights in the underlying action.

BACKGROUND

Respondents and cross-appellants, Roger Leon Jespersen and others, filed this action on May 2, 2002, against appellants and cross-respondents, attorneys Karen Zubiate-Beauchamp, Daniel Doonan, Suzanne Shapiro, and the Law Offices of Daniel J. Doonan. The complaint alleges that respondents retained appellants to represent them in a civil lawsuit in which the respondents had been named as defendants, and that appellants did so negligently, resulting in a court order requiring respondents to provide verified responses to discovery requests without objecting to them. It is further alleged that appellants’…

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.