Judge Used As Pawn In Civil Extortion / Settlement Demand?

In a squabble over the receipts of a consortium of restaurants, a demand letter was sent. The appellate opinion contains the letter, albeit with the name and photograph of the judge omitted. A portion quoted states: “Because Mr. Moore has also received a copy of the enclosed lawsuit, I have deliberately left blank spaces in portions of the Complaint dealing with your using company resources to arrange sexual liaisons with older men such as ‘Uncle Jerry,’ Judge [name redacted] a/k/a ‘Dad’ (see enclosed photo), and many others. When the Complaint is filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, there will be no blanks in the pleading. [¶] My client will file the Complaint against you and your other joint conspirators unless this matter is resolved to my client’s satisfaction within five (5) business days from your receipt of this Complaint. . . .” (Italics added.) After he received the letter, plaintiff sued defendants for civil extortion, violation of civil rights, IIED and NIED. Defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute [Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16]. The trial court denied the motion to strike, basing the ruling on how defendants allegedly obtained the information about the alleged sexual liaisons [wiretapping and computer hacking], and concluding such activities are illegal as a matter of law and not covered under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed it part. As to plaintiff’s cause of action for civil extortion, the court ruled it “is subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute.” With regard to the causes of action for violation of civil rights, IIED and NIED, the court said they “are not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute because they did not arise from protected activities.” Malin v. Singer (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; July 16, 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 292].