Kenne

Kenne v. Stennis

Good Law
179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 198·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 946·230 Cal. App. 4th 953
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 2014B242262California7,784 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mosk, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants, appellants, and cross-respondents Kevin P. Stennis (Stennis) and his wife, Helaine Hatter (Hatter), appeal from that portion of the trial court’s order denying, in part, their Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute ) special motion to strike claims against them arising out of Hatter’s police reports and her filing of two civil harassment petitions under section 527.6 against plaintiff, respondent, and cross-appellant Kathleen A. Kenne (plaintiff). Plaintiff cross-appeals from that portion of the trial court’s order granting, in part, defendants’ special motion to strike.

On the appeal, we hold that the trial court erred when it denied the special motion to strike as to the conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action. The conduct underlying those causes of action is protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits because her malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on the filing of a petition under section 527.6 and the conduct underlying plaintiff’s other tort claims is privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision…

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.