An attorney in California must face a defamation claim related to a fee dispute with another lawyer over a copyright suit, after a state appeals court ruled Thursday that the allegedly defamatory comments didn’t involve anticipated litigation.
Law Offices of Paul N. Philips APLC sued David P. Rudich and Law Offices of David Rudich to resolve a dispute stemming from an agreement under which they agreed to share legal fees in a music copyright infringement case with a high-profile client Rudich had introduced to Philips. The suit also included a defamation per se claim, based on alleged comments made by Rudich about Philips.
Rudich filed a special motion to strike the defamation per se cause of action, arguing that the statements at issue were subject to the litigation privilege because they were made in relation to anticipated litigation. The trial court denied it.
The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision, saying Rudich failed to connect the statements to this litigation or any anticipated litigation.
“Without more, Rudich’s alleged defamatory statements appear wholly unconnected to the instant action and thus do not meet the threshold showing of protected activity under the first prong of our anti-SLAPP analysis,” Justice Kimberly A. Knill wrote for the California Court of Appeal, Second District.
Justices Luis A. Lavin and Anne H. Egerton joined the decision.
Court records show Rudich is represented by Law Offices of Philip Kaufler. Philips’ law office represents him.
The case is Philips v. Rudich, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., No. B305942, 3/17/22.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.