Scribd
Upload
313 views1 page

T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS Plaintiff vs. ANDREW LIEBICH Defendant

This document is a tentative ruling from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin regarding a motion for a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) filed by defendant Andrew Liebich against plaintiff T. Matthew Phillips. The court grants Liebich's motion, finding that Phillips cannot show a probability of prevailing on his causes of action for malicious prosecution and defamation regarding a previous civil harassment restraining order filed by Liebich against Phillips. As the underlying action was resolved via an anti-SLAPP motion, Phillips' argument that it was illegal fails. Additionally, truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and the restraining orders were issued by the court.

Uploaded by

WAKESHEEP Marie RN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
313 views1 page

T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS Plaintiff vs. ANDREW LIEBICH Defendant

This document is a tentative ruling from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin regarding a motion for a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) filed by defendant Andrew Liebich against plaintiff T. Matthew Phillips. The court grants Liebich's motion, finding that Phillips cannot show a probability of prevailing on his causes of action for malicious prosecution and defamation regarding a previous civil harassment restraining order filed by Liebich against Phillips. As the underlying action was resolved via an anti-SLAPP motion, Phillips' argument that it was illegal fails. Additionally, truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and the restraining orders were issued by the court.

Uploaded by

WAKESHEEP Marie RN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin

Tentative Ruling

Date: 07/05/2018 01:28 PM Case Number: STK-CV-UD-2018-0000347

T. Matthew Phillips vs Andrew Liebich AKA Drew Liebig

Event: Motion for SLAPP


Event Date: 07/06/2018 at 9:00 AM in Department 10C

Tentative Ruling on Defendant Andrew Liebich’s Motion and Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint (anti-SLAPP)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 set for hearing in Dept. 10C on July 6, 2018.

This action is brought by Plaintiff, T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS, who was the Defendant in a prior Civil Harassment
Restraining Order action filed under CCP §527.6, commenced by Defendant, ANDREW LIEBICH, wherein the Court
initially granted the restraining orders, but later dismissed the action upon hearing Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion.
Defendant, LIEBICH, has filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion under CCP §425.16, but it is actually a SLAPPback Motion under
CCP §425.18(h) because the underlying action was resolved by way of an Anti-SLAPP Motion. Plaintiff’s argument that
the prior action was illegal fails and he has failed to meet the “first prong” under Code of Civil Procedure section
424.18(h). Cal Civ. Pro. Code §425.18(b)(1); Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal. 4th 260, 283, 286 (2006);
Parisi v. Mazzaferro, 5 Cal. App. 5th 1219, 1228-1229 (2016); R.S. v. P.M., 202 Cal. App. 4th 181, 191-192 (2011);
Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. 182 Cal. App. 4th 1644, 1654 (2010.) Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP
Motion is, therefore, properly analyzed under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on his First Cause of Action for malicious prosecution because the action
is not permitted after an unsuccessful Petition filed under CCP §527.6. Pursuant to Zamos, v. Stroud [32 Cal. 4th 958,
964-965 (2004)] and Chavez v. Mendoza [94 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 1087-88 (2001)], the Defendant has satisfied his burden
of proof that Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for malicious prosecution is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section
425.16; Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for malicious prosecution is an action based upon the Defendant’s right to petition
the Court for redress and any judicial filing satisfies the public issue requirement. Cal.Civ. Pro. Code §425.16(b)(1), (e)(1).
Plaintiff’s Complaint for malicious prosecution is based upon the filing of the Civil Harassment Restraining Order and is
not permitted under Siam v. Kizilbash [130 Cal. App. 4th 1563, 1567 (2005.) Since Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Malicious
Prosecution has no minimal merit, Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion is granted as to the First Cause of Action.

Plaintiff cannot prove his Second Cause of Action for defamation because what was published is true and truth is an
absolute defense to a defamation action. The filing of the Civil Harassment Restraining Order was not illegal; therefore,
Plaintiff must prove that he has a probability of prevailing on the merits of his defamation action. ComputerXpress, Inc. v.
Jackson, 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1010 (2001); Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, supra, 39 Cal. 4th at 291; Gilbert v.
Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13, 27-28 (2007.) Plaintiff in his Complaint clearly admits the publication of the Court issued
restraining Orders is true; however, he argues that because the case was dismissed, the restraining order publication
became defamatory per se. Since the court did issue the Restraining Orders, Plaintiff’s Cause of action for defamation
fails because truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action. Reed v. Gallagher, 248 Cal. App. 4th 841, 860-861
(2016.)

Defendant is to prepare the Order pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1312.

Elizabeth Humphreys/Judge of the Superior Court

Tentative Ruling

You might also like