Kirkland v. Rappaport CA2/1

Filed 7/31/14 Kirkland v. Rappaport CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOHN KIRKLAND et al., B243607

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC477646, v. BC477723)

DOUGLAS RAPPAPORT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard L. Fruin, Judge. Affirmed. Incite Law Group and Mark A. Vega for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gaims Weil West, Alan Jay Weil, Barry G. West, and Steven S. Davis for Defendants and Respondents.

____________________________________

Plaintiffs John Kirkland and Charles Arnold appeal from the order granting a special motion to strike their defamation suits against attorney Douglas Rappaport and the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld, LLP (Akin Gump) under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).1 We affirm because Rappaport’s allegedly defamatory report to his client was a “written . . . statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a . . . judicial body” (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(2)) and plaintiffs failed to establish that “there is a probability [they] will prevail on the claim” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)). FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW The facts relevant to the anti-SLAPP motions are undisputed. Plaintiff Kirkland is the former outside general counsel of U.S. Aerospace, Inc. (USAE) and plaintiff Arnold is a former consultant to the company. In December 2010, concerned about possible breaches of fiduciary duty and professional responsibility on the part of Kirkland and Arnold, officers of USAE retained Rappaport and his law firm, Akin Gump, “to provide advice regarding the propriety of actions taken by Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Arnold and other corporate fiduciaries working in cooperation with Mr. Kirkland and Mr. Arnold.” The officers “requested that [Rappaport and his firm] provide USAE with a recommendation of what steps, if any, should be taken by USAE, including litigation, to protect USAE.” The officers also provided Rappaport and his firm “factual information about actions taken by Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Arnold and other corporate fiduciaries working in cooperation with Mr. Kirkland and Mr. Arnold that concerned [them].”