Sparks v. Yahoo CA2/2

Filed 4/8/14 Sparks v. Yahoo CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PHILLIP GORDON SPARKS, B250555

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC118884) v.

YAHOO! INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Allan J. Goodman, Judge. Affirmed.

Phillip Gordon Sparks, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, Dennis L. Wilson and Christopher T. Varas for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________

Appellant Phillip Gordon Sparks (Sparks) appeals the trial court’s order granting respondent Yahoo! Inc.’s (Yahoo) special motion to strike his first amended complaint (FAC) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,1 California’s anti-SLAPP2 statute. For both procedural and substantive reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Restraining Order Against Sparks Sparks’s action against Yahoo relates to two news articles that reported on the entry of a restraining order against Sparks in the matter of Crow v. Sparks, case No. SS022509 in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the Crow proceeding). The Crow proceeding involved a request by entertainer Sheryl Crow and film executive Harvey Weinstein (collectively petitioners) for a restraining order against Sparks. During the hearing on petitioners’ request on August 14, 2012, petitioners presented expert opinion testimony from a forensic and clinical psychiatrist and addictionologist named Dr. David Glaser. Dr. Glaser testified that it was his opinion that Sparks “present[ed] a clear and present danger to Ms. Crow” and Mr. Weinstein. He further testified that Sparks was “imminently dangerous” to petitioners. And, Dr. Glaser testified that “Mr. Sparks [was] unambiguously delusional, and his delusions and his delusional web . . . pulled Ms. Crow and Mr. Weinstein into it.” Sparks was given the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Glaser during the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered the requested protective order with Sparks’s consent.