Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Klotz v. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy CA2/1green2 sentences2026Therefore, rather than requiring the attorney to defeat the claim by showing it is legally meritless, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing before being allowed to assert the claim.” (Klotz v. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 (Klotz).) As a threshold matter, the parties disagree over whether Civil Code section 1714.10, subdivision (a), is implicated at all. 2023Therefore, rather than requiring the attorney to defeat the claim by showing it is legally meritless, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing before being allowed to assert the claim.” (Klotz v. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) In the anti-SLAPP motion, on the question of the plaintiffs’ likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the defendants argued the entire complaint needed to be stricken because “allegations raised by plaintiffs of these defendants[’] ‘conspiracy’ with their clients runs throughout each cause of action. . . . | 1 | 5 |
Stueve v. Berger Kahngreen2 sentences2015(Stueve v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 327, 329 [ 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 ].) “Section 1714.10 prohibits the unauthorized filing of an action for nonexempt civil conspiracy against an attorney based on conduct arising from the representation of a client that is in connection with any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute.” (Berg, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 815 .) Section 1714.10 “was enacted to combat ‘the use of frivolous conspiracy claims that were brought as a tactical ploy against attorneys and their clients and that were designed to disrupt the attorney-client relations 2015(Stueve v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 327, 329 [ 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 ].) “Section 1714.10 prohibits the unauthorized filing of an action for nonexempt civil conspiracy against an attorney based on conduct arising from the representation of a client that is in connection with any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute.” (Berg, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 815 .) Section 1714.10 “was enacted to combat ‘the use of frivolous conspiracy claims that were brought as a tactical ploy against attorneys and their clients and that were designed to disrupt the attorney-client relations | 1 | 2 |
Cortese v. Sherwoodgreen1 sentence2025Therefore, rather than requiring the attorney to defeat the claim by showing it is legally meritless, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing before being allowed to assert the claim.’ ” (MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 167, 186 .) We begin our analysis with the threshold question of whether Civil Code section 1714.10 applies to plaintiffs’ claims. 4 (Cortese v. Sherwood (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 445, 454 (Cortese).) This section applies to a “cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015(Stueve v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 327, 329 [ 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 ].) “Section 1714.10 prohibits the unauthorized filing of an action for nonexempt civil conspiracy against an attorney based on conduct arising from the representation of a client that is in connection with any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute.” (Berg, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 815 .) Section 1714.10 “was enacted to combat ‘the use of frivolous conspiracy claims that were brought as a tactical ploy against attorneys and their clients and that were designed to disrupt the attorney-client relations 2015(Stueve v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 327, 329 [ 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 ].) “Section 1714.10 prohibits the unauthorized filing of an action for nonexempt civil conspiracy against an attorney based on conduct arising from the representation of a client that is in connection with any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute.” (Berg, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 815 .) Section 1714.10 “was enacted to combat ‘the use of frivolous conspiracy claims that were brought as a tactical ploy against attorneys and their clients and that were designed to disrupt the attorney-client relations | 2 | 2015–2015 |
MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich
green
1 sentence2025Therefore, rather than requiring the attorney to defeat the claim by showing it is legally meritless, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing before being allowed to assert the claim.’ ” (MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 167, 186 .) We begin our analysis with the threshold question of whether Civil Code section 1714.10 applies to plaintiffs’ claims. 4 (Cortese v. Sherwood (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 445, 454 (Cortese).) This section applies to a “cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2023The prefiling procedures “shall not apply to a cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client, where (1) the attorney has an independent legal duty to the plaintiff, or (2) the 9. attorney’s acts go beyond the performance of a professional duty to serve the client and involve a conspiracy to violate a legal duty in furtherance of the attorney’s financial gain.” (Id., subd. (c).) The quoted language, which was added to the statute in 1991, essentially codifies the holding of Doctors’ Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39 (Doctors’ Co.). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.