Sprengel

Jean E. Sprengel and Lanette Mohr created Purposeful Press, LLC (Purposeful Press), to market and distribute a guidebook that Sprengel wrote about the side effects of chemotherapy. Several years later, Sprengel and Mohr had a dispute about the management of the company. Sprengel filed an action to dissolve Purposeful Press and a separate action alleging that Mohr had infringed her copyrights to the guidebook. Mohr, purportedly acting as the manager of Purposeful Press, retained Gregory A. Zbylut, Vincent Cox and Leopold, Petrich & Smith (LPS) to represent the company in the actions. After the suits were resolved, Sprengel filed a malpractice action alleging that Zbylut, Cox and LPS had violated the duty of loyalty they owed to her under the Rules of Professional Conduct by pursuing Mohr’s interests in the underlying dissolution and copyright actions. Sprengel alleged she had an implied attorney-client relationship with each defendant based on her status as a 50 percent owner of Purposeful Press.

Defendants filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that *144 Sprengel’s claims did not…

Dissenting. — The first step in the well-established two-step process in ruling on a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 1 is to decide “whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity. The moving defendant’s burden is to demonstrate that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken ‘in furtherance of the [defendant’s] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue,’ as defined in the statute.” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 507 , 52 P.3d 685 ]; accord, Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 , 250 P.3d 1115 ]; see City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519 , 52 P.3d 695 ] [“[i]n the anti-SLAPP context, the critical point is whether the plaintiff’s cause of action itself was based on an act in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech”].)

A lawyer’s prelitigation and litigation-related activities on behalf of a client constitute…

Filed 10/13/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

JEAN E. SPRENGEL, B256761

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC535584) v.

GREGORY A. ZBYLUT, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth Allen White, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew J. Norris for Defendant and Appellant Gregory A. Zbylut. Nemecek & Cole, Michael McCarthy and Susan S. Baker, for Defendants and Appellants Vincent Cox and Leopold, Petrich & Smith The Law Offices of Fred J. Knez and Fred J. Knez, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________ Jean Sprengel and Lanette Mohr created “Purposeful Press, LLC” to market and distribute a guidebook that Sprengel wrote about the side effects of chemotherapy. Several years later, Sprengel and Mohr had a dispute about the management of the company. Sprengel filed an action to dissolve Purposeful Press and a separate action alleging that Mohr had infringed her copyrights to the guidebook. Mohr, purportedly acting as the manager of Purposeful…