In plaintiff’s legal malpractice action against his former attorney seeking damages and rescission of a contingency fee contract, trial court’s denial of defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed as: 1) the trial court correctly ruled that defendant had not met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims arise from petitioning activity within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) this rendered unnecessary any consideration of defendant’s arguments that plaintiff failed to show probable success on the merits.
Read Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., No. D053371
Filed September 23, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge McDonald
Counsel
For Appellant: Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., Frank E. Rogozienski; Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek and Gerald L. McMahon
For Appelle: Stephen M. Hogan; Herron & Steele and Matthew V. Herron
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
