Barker

Barker v. Fox & Associates

Good Law
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 511·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 794·240 Cal. App. 4th 333
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2015A142373California5,084 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richman, J.

Alexander Barker sued three defendants for defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Barker had met his burden under step two of the anti-SLAPP analysis. We review the issue de novo, and conclude otherwise, that Barker has not met his burden to show that his complaint is legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing to support a favorable judgment. We thus reverse.

BACKGROUND

The Factual Setting

An understanding of the factual background predating Barker’s complaint is necessary to put the matter in context, and we begin with that background.

Allison McBride (Allison), an elderly woman, suffered from dementia for many years. Allison had two daughters, Lucy McBride Olsen (Olsen) and Cameron Volker (Vollcer).

For several years, a dedicated team of paid caregivers — described by Olsen as “loving friends who knew [Allison] and cared for her deeply” — tended to Allison’s care; the team was called “Allison’s Angels.” As described in Barker’s brief, Diane Senia, a longtime friend of Allison “for many years had…

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.