Alliance Financial Capital v. Moore

Filed 9/15/06 Alliance Financial Capital v. Moore CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Alliance Financial Capital, Inc. (Alliance) filed a four cause of action complaint against Jennifer Moore and her attorney, James H. Seymour (collectively, defendants), in a dispute over control of Alliance. Defendants' motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16)[1] was granted as to two, and denied as to two, of the causes of action. Defendants argue here that the motion should have been granted in full. We agree with the trial court that the disputed causes of action did not arise from activity protected by the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the order on the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Moore and Richard Hatfield, Alliance's president, are embroiled in litigation over Alliance. According to complaints filed by Moore against Hatfield, they lived together from 1988 until 2001, had a wedding ceremony in 1990, held themselves out as husband and wife, but never obtained a marriage license. Alliance, a business that factors accounts receivable, is described in the record as â€