Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

v. Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205, 212 (1990). The privilege even extends to “any publication required or permitted by law in the course of a judicial proceeding to achieve the objects of the litigation, even though the publication is made outside the courtroom and no function of the court or its officers is involved.” Id. Even taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, all of City Defendants’ protected activities fall under California’s litigation privilege. City Defendants’ alleged fraudulent filings and abusive discovery, while perhaps uncouth, were still designed “to achieve the objects of” and are connected to the Modern Floor Action. Plaintiffs argue that the litigation privilege does not apply because City Defendants protected activities were “outside the legitimate scope of judicial proceedings” and were “undertaken for improper purposes.” (Opp’n MTD 15, Dkt. No. 31.) However, “the litigation privilege applies even when statements are made for improper purposes.” Weiser Law Firm, P.C. v. Hartleib, No. 8:23-cv-00171-CJC (JDEx), 2023 WL 4291982, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2023). Thus, even if City Defendants acted improperly or out of malice, their litigation conduct is protected by California’s litigation privilege. For these reasons, the Court