|
3243 REVIEW DENIED An action based on the claim that defendant attorney caused a harassing investigation to be made of plaintiff that far exceeded the scope of an arbitration in which they were involved and that defendant made embarrassing public disclosures and false statements about plaintiff during the course of it did not arise from defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right of petition and was not subject to a motion made under the anti-SLAPP statute.
PAUL v FRIEDMAN (Harassing Investigation) 95 CA4 853 [See: CCP 425.16; Wilcox v Superior Court 27 CA4 809, T/AT 9/94; Briggs v ECHO 19 C4 1106, T/AT 2/99]
|
|
|