Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)

Citation: Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Parent Document: Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2007-08-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5608052/action-apartment-assn-v-city-of... ↗

Full Text

1,253 chars

*1246We have observed that the litigation privilege does not apply to the following crimes: perjury (Pen. Code, § 118 et seq.); subornation of perjury (id., § 127); criminal prosecution under Business and Professions Code section 6128; false report of a criminal offense (Pen. Code, § 148.5); and “attorney solicitation through the use of ‘runners’ or ‘cappers’ ” (Rubin, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1198, quoting Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6152-6153; see Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 218-219; Hagberg, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 361). State Bar discipline of attorneys who engage in solicitation and enforcement of the antisolicitation statute is also excepted from the litigation privilege. (Rubin, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1198.) Our recognition that prosecutions of these crimes and specified State Bar actions are not barred by the litigation privilege does not reflect that an exception for criminal prosecutions is inherent in the litigation privilege itself. Instead, our recognition of these exceptions to the litigation privilege has been guided by the “rule of statutory construction that particular provisions will prevail over general provisions.” (In re James M. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 517, 522 [108 Cal.Rptr. 89, 510 P.2d 33]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1859.)

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text