Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto. Co., 106 Cal. App. 5th 361 (2024)

Eva Osborne sued her former employer (Pleasanton Automotive) and its executive general manager (the ironically named Bob Slap) for discrimination, retaliation, harassment and wage and hour violations arising during the four years while Osborne worked as Slap’s executive assistant. Two years into the litigation, Slap filed a cross-complaint against Osborne, asserting that statements she had submitted to the human resources director about Slap’s requiring her to perform “demeaning personal tasks” constituted libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with contractual relations and negligence. In response, Osborne filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Slap’s cross-complaint on the ground that the claims against her arose out of protected activity that she undertook in anticipation of litigation. The trial court granted Osborne’s anti-SLAPP motion on the ground that the statements were both absolutely and conditionally privileged under Civil Code § 47. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the litigation privilege barred Slap’s claims (i.e., Slap’s claims were properly “SLAPPED”) because they had minimal merit. The Court also rejected Slap’s argument that Osborne’s statements were not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute because they were made in furtherance of an attempted extortion.