Famous business formation lawyer in California

 

Procedural Posture

Appellant businessman sued respondent lawyer and advocacy organizations for unfair business practices and defamatory statements. The lawyer moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, the anti-"strategic lawsuit against public participation" (SLAPP) statute. The Superior Court of Fresno County (California) granted the motion. The businessman appealed. We are one of the famous business formation lawyer in California.

Overview

The businessman served on a hospital group's board. The group planned to build a for-profit hospital. The lawyer represented some local medical advocacy organizations and wrote to the attorney general joining the request of other organizations who sought investigation of the group's activities. A newspaper published an article about the lawyer's letter. The businessman's suit accused the lawyer of being the alter ego of the organizations he represented and seeking to extort settlements. The appellate court found that filing a lawsuit was an exercise of the organizations' constitutional right of petition. Statements made in connection with or in preparation of litigation were subject to § 425.16. Communications made in connection with litigation did not necessarily fall outside Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)'s absolute litigation privilege simply because they were alleged to be fraudulent. The businessman could not avoid § 47(b)'s bar by casting his claim as one for injunctive relief. The lawyer's letters to other medical providers were also protected by the common interest privilege, which was enough to shift the burden to the businessman to show they were delivered out of ill will.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed.

Procedural Posture

Appellant heir sought review of an order of the Superior Court County of Ventura, California, denying her petition to invalidate an assignment of her interest in decedent's estate to an heir hunter, or alternatively, to limit the heir hunter's compensation. Cal. Prob. Code §§ 1303(g), (h), 11604.

Overview

In a probate proceeding, appellant heir appealed an order denying a petition to invalidate an assignment of her interest in decedent's estate to an heir hunter, or alternatively, to limit the heir hunter's compensation. Cal. Prob. Code §§ 1303(g), (h), 11604. On review, the court of appeal affirmed. An heir hunter was the party responsible for locating a missing or lost heir. As consideration for information concerning the inheritance, the heir was required to execute an assignment giving the heir hunter a percentage of the inheritance. She also signed, but later revoked, a general power of attorney in favor of the attorney who represented the heir hunter. She also refused to sign a letter authorizing the attorney to represent her even though the heir hunter agreed to pay the attorney's fees. Under these circumstances, the heir hunter's assignment was valid. The general power of attorney in favor of the attorney contravened public policy and was void.

Outcome

The order was affirmed. Parties were required to bear their own costs on appeal.