Michael K. v. Janice Cho

In this case, Survivor S.J. K. hired Attorney Cho to represent her in her divorce and DVRO proceedings against her estranged Husband, Michael K.  Survivor used a joint credit card to pay her fees.  Husband contested the charges with the credit card company.  Attorney told the company why the charges were valid, and reiterated to the credit card company the allegations of abuse Survivor had made against Husband.

Husband then sued Attorney for her statements to the credit card company, claiming libel (written defamation) (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 45), negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Attorney filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Husband’s complaint, arguing Attorney’s statements related to the litigation and so were protected by the statute. Attorney also arguing Husband’s litigation would not prevail on the merits.  The trial court denied Attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion, and Attorney appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed.  The court held that Attorney’s statements “arose from” a judicial proceeding because the statements were made in relation to Survivor’s ability to pay Attorney’s fees for the divorce and DVRO litigation.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)  Notably, the court also confirms, “Depriving a spouse of funds required for basic necessities qualifies as abuse under the” DVPA.  (Fam. Code, § 6320.)  In the unpublished part of the opinion, the court also concluded that Husband “failed to demonstrate any probability of prevailing” on his claims.