Warden

Warden v. Cross

Good Law
94 F. App'x 474
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 2004No. 02-57171California913 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Elizabeth Warden (‘Warden” or “appellant”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her RICO action alleging that the doctors she had sued in state court for medical malpractice conspired to commit perjury and altered and/or suppressed evidence during the state court action. After Warden obtained a large damage award in the underlying state action, the trial court sanctioned the doctors, an expert witness, and their counsel for perjury and withholding evidence. In the underlying federal action, the district court held that Warden failed to allege facts demonstrating the necessary predicate acts to maintain a RICO claim and also dismissed Warden’s supplemental state law claims.

The district court correctly determined that state claims based upon allegations of perjury are privileged under California Civil Code § 47(b), since the claims involved acts of communication pursuant to the course of litigation. Indeed, § 47(b) provides litigation privilege for judges, attorneys, and witnesses for “any publication required or permitted by law in the course of a judicial proceeding to achieve the objects of the litigation, even though the publication is made outside…

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.