Rusheen

Rusheen v. Cohen

Good Law
2006 Cal. LEXIS 2542·2006 Daily Journal DAR 2153·37 Cal. 4th 1048·39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516·128 P.3d 713
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 2006No. S123203California6,289 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chin, J.

Are actions taken to collect a judgment, such as obtaining a writ of execution and levying on a judgment debtor’s property, protected by the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), as “communication[s]” in the course of a judicial proceeding? In Brown v. Kennard (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 40 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 891 ] (Brown), the Court of Appeal held that the privilege protects both the process of applying for the writ of execution and the levy on the judgment debtor’s property, as an act of carrying out the writ. On the other hand, in Drum v. Bleau, Fox & Associates (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1009 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ] (Drum), the Court of Appeal held that, although the privilege protects the application for the writ of execution, it does not extend to the subsequent, noncommunicative acts in levying on the property. We granted review to resolve the conflict.

We conclude that where the cause of action is based on a communicative act, the litigation privilege extends to those noncommunicative actions which are necessarily related to that communicative act. In this case, because the claim for abuse of process was based on the communicative act of filing…

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.