Hernandez v. Levatino
In this action, Hernandez sued Charles R. Levatino, who represented Wife in the divorce. Hernandez’s complaint and opening brief are very difficult to understand. It appears Hernandez alleges the trial court appointed Levatino a trustee for Hernandez and, as a result, Levatino owed Hernandez a fiduciary duty. Levatino allegedly breached this fiduciary duty when the marital assets were sold and/or divided.
Levatino filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1),[1] alleging that Hernandez’s complaint was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (hereafter SLAPP). The trial court concluded that the causes of action in Hernandez’s complaint arose from statements and actions occurring in a judicial proceeding (id., subd. (e)(1)), and there was no possibility Hernandez would prevail on the merits of the claim (id., subd. (b)(1)). Accordingly, it granted Levatino’s motion, struck Hernandez’s complaint, entered judgment in favor of Levatino, and awarded Levatino attorney fees.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude the trial court reached the correct conclusion. All of the actions complained of by Hernandez arose out of Levatino’s representation of Wife, and there is no possible merit to the claims asserted by Hernandez. Thus, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on Hernandez v. Levatino