legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Alzugaray v. Kiesel, Boucher & Larson

Alzugaray v. Kiesel, Boucher & Larson
02/26/07

Alzugaray v


Alzugaray v. Kiesel, Boucher & Larson


Filed 1/31/07  Alzugaray v. Kiesel, Boucher & Larson CA2/8


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION EIGHT







JOSEPH F. ALZUGARAY,


            Plaintiff and Appellant,


            v.


KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON et al.,


            Defendants and Respondents.



      B180136


      (Los Angeles County


      Super. Ct. No. BC311107)



            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.


Jon M. Mayeda, Judge.  Affirmed.


            Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch, Neil Papiano and Emily Ayers for Plaintiff and Appellant.


            Nemecek & Cole, Jonathan B. Cole, Karen K. Coffin and Lucy H. Mekhael for Defendants and Respondents.


            This appeal raises issues involving the interplay between the litigation privilege (Civ. Code section, §  47, subd. (b)); the anti-SLAPP statute (California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (â€





Description This appeal raises issues involving the interplay between the litigation privilege (Civ. Code section, S 47, subd. (b)); the anti-SLAPP statute (California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 ("section 425.16")); and Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, regarding the procedure to be followed in lawsuits involving childhood sexual abuse and setting forth requirements prior to naming defendants in those pleadings. The trial court granted respondents' anti-SLAPP special motion to strike the instant lawsuit brought by appellant, Monsignor Joseph H. Alzugaray ("Alzugaray" or "appellant") against respondents. Alzugaray alleged eight causes of action involving defamation and false light invasion of privacy arising from complaints filed by respondents that alleged child molestation by Alzugaray, but did not name him as a defendant in those complaints. The trial court found respondents were protected by the litigation privilege. This appeal follows.
Court conclude that appellant is not a "defendant" entitled to at least temporary anonymity under section 340.1 and that the litigation privilege applies. Court therefore affirm the judgment following the trial court's order granting respondents' motion to strike.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2018 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2018 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale