Graham-Sult
Graham-Sult v. Clainos
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Smith, J.
ORDER
The Opinion filed December 27, 2013, appearing at 738 F.3d 1131 , is amended as follows:
With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed in response to the amended opinion.
OPINION
Plaintiffs Alexander Graham-Suit and David Graham appeal the district court’s disposition of: (1) a motion to dismiss; (2) a special motion to strike under California’s antiSLAPP statute; and (3) related attorney’s fees awards.
We affirm the disposition of the motion to strike in part and reverse in part. Striking Plaintiffs’ conversion and unjust enrichment claims against Nicholas Clai-nos was erroneous, because: (a) taking possession of personal property, (b) preparing and executing an assignment of intellectual property following a probate court’s final order, and (c) receiving consideration for stock sold after a probate court entered its final order, are not protected activities.
Striking Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim against Clainos was also erroneous. Even though the conduct underlying this claim was protected…