Follow Us

Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Litigation Products Liability

Defamation and the Disgruntled Defendant

Anti-SLAPP Legislation and the Defamation Claim

Part Two of a Two-Part Article

In last month's newsletter, we began discussion of a defamation claim brought against two attorneys who took to the airwaves to publicize their client's complaints against a hospital and its owner. The defendants in that matter sought redress for what they claimed were untrue, and very unflattering, statements, but the attorneys moved for dismissal of the claims. We continue here with the court's reasons for granting the attorneys' motion.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In last month’s newsletter, we began discussion of a defamation claim brought against two attorneys, Brian Kabateck and Robert Hutchinson, who took to the airwaves to publicize their client Mary Cavallieri’s complaints against a hospital and its owner, Michael D. Drobot. The defendants in that matter sought redress for what they claimed were untrue, and very unflattering, statements, but the attorneys moved for dismissal of Drobot’s claims in accordance with California’s anti-SLAPP (anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)). We continue here with the court’s reasons for granting the attorneys’ motion.

Read These Next