Amar v. Schuller CA2/1

Filed 6/24/14 Amar v. Schuller CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

SHAOUL AMAR, B246492

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC059084) v.

JEFFREY SCHULLER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William D. Stewart, Judge. Reversed. Jeffrey S. Schuller, in pro. per.; Jeffrey S. Schuller and Jay Freedman for Defendants and Appellants Henri Ric Schuller and Schuller & Schuller. Michael H. Artan, for Defendant and Appellant Joseph A. Pertel. Stone & Stone, Stanley H. Stone, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________

A losing defendant in earlier civil litigation immediately sued his opponents’ attorneys, alleging their legal representation of his opponents breached duties owed to him. The attorneys moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing it arose from protected litigation activity.1 The trial court denied the motion, apparently concluding the attorneys failed to specify what portions of the complaint alleged protected activity. We reverse. BACKGROUND We obtain the background facts from “‘the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.’ (§ 425.16, subd. (b).)” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89.) Respondent Shaoul Amar alleges Henri and Jeffrey Schuller obtained his confidential information during the course of a 20-year attorney-client relationship, and Joseph Pertel had access to the information from the Schullers. In 2011, Pertel and the Schullers represented Marc and Jacqueline Fronen in a lawsuit against Amar that alleged Amar fraudulently induced the Fronens to convey real property to him. (Fronen et al. v. Amar et al., case No. BC469858.) Amar failed to respond to the complaint, and on January 17, 2012, the trial court entered a default judgment against him. Post-judgment collection efforts are ongoing. On July 31, 2012, Amar filed suit against the Schullers, their law firm, Schuller & Schuller, and Pertel for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging defendants used his confidential information against him in the Fronen lawsuit. On October 12, 2012, Pertel moved to strike the complaint pursuant to section 425.16, arguing each cause of action arose from his right to petition the courts on behalf of the Fronens. The Schullers and Schuller & Schuller