Cal. Alliance of Acupuncture Medicine v. Wong CA2/7

Filed 12/21/15 Cal. Alliance of Acupuncture Medicine v. Wong CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF B261970 ACUPUNCTURE MEDICINE et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. EC063206)

v.

IRENE LI WONG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William D. Stewart, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Law Offices of Steve Luan, Steve Luan, for Defendant and Appellant. The Liu Law Firm, Long Z. Liu, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

Irene Wong appeals the denial of her motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. While Wong ultimately was successful in her demurrers to the claims asserted against her, we find the trial court did not err in finding she had failed to make the necessary showing under the statute. We affirm the denial of the motion to strike, but reverse the attorney’s fee award.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs California Alliance of Acupuncture Medicine and related individuals (collectively CAAM) sued former member Irene Wong in October, 2014. The complaint alleged five causes of action: defamation; intentional interference with contractual relations; interference with prospective business advantage; negligent interference with prospective business advantage; and breach of fiduciary duty. As alleged in the complaint, Wong was the Executive Director of CAAM from January 1, 2008, until December 31, 2010. In 2011, Wong criticized the leadership of the organization in statements, articles and emails, asserting that members of the leadership were embezzling organization funds and were “thugs.” Wong met with members, urging them to resign; she sought refund of her fees and other funds, and urged others to do the same. Fourteen other members sought refunds; some resigned and joined a rival organization created by Wong’s friend. Wong ultimately sued CAAM, and urged others to join that litigation; that litigation remained pending at the time the complaint in this action was filed. On November 19, 2014, Wong filed a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 Her primary assertion in that motion was that a single communication, a letter to members dated August 19, 2011, and sent in connection with litigation, formed the basis for all of the claims. Accordingly, she asserted the letter was both protected by the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)), and had been