• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / Articles / Haneline Pacific Reporters, LLC v. May, et al. – “Litigation Privilege” Doesn’t Apply to Negotiation/Persuasion

Haneline Pacific Reporters, LLC v. May, et al. – “Litigation Privilege” Doesn’t Apply to Negotiation/Persuasion

October 5, 2008 by Adrianos Facchetti 1 Comment

You may be wondering why I write about anti-SLAPP cases so much. Well, the fact of the matter is that defamation actions are to anti-slapp motions what peanut butter is to jelly. You rarely have one without the other.
In Haneline Pacific Reporters, LLC v. May, et al., __ Cal.App.4th __ (4th District, Division 3, October 1, 2008), the court of appeal determined that the “litigation privilege” does not apply to “attempts at persuasion and negotiation.” The privilege only applies when litigation is “actually contemplated” and not “mere[ly] a possibility.” As a consequence, since the communication at issue wasn’t covered by the litigation privilege, the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. Reversed and remanded.

Buffer Share

Filed Under: Articles

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. JOhn says

    June 17, 2009 at 5:11 am

    I am handling a libel/defamation case here in davis county pro se cuase of money or I would hire an attorney do you have any advice on how to prepare for trial.
    I am in the pre-trial stage discovery and then trial its a good case it has merit the words spoking are un-true and they are slanderous wow.
    I was injured by the things said
    Can you suggest any thing?
    John

    Reply

Leave a Reply to JOhn Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in