Corporate compliance attorney

Appellant wife sought review of an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) from respondent husband in an action involving the determination of community and separate property, spousal support, and a social security disability credit.

Appellant wife challenged a judgment of dissolution of marriage from respondent husband. They stipulated that the donut shop business belonged to respondent before the marriage. Appellant sought review on the issues of community property and credits for social security payments. The trial court also terminated spousal support to appellant after testimony that appellant was living with another man without hearing proffered testimony on the reason for cohabitation. The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the spousal support termination and remanded for a hearing in accordance with Cal. Civ. Code § 4801.5. Once corporate compliance attorney respondent established cohabitation, appellant was afforded an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence on the issue of decreased need for support. The court affirmed the rest of the judgment and found that it was proper for the trial court to refuse evidence concerning the decreased value of respondent's business during the marriage where the value was no greater at the time of the separation than at the time of the marriage. Respondent, as a noncustodial parent, was entitled to a credit for social security disability payments he made on behalf of the minor children.

The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the matter of respondent husband's termination of spousal support and remanded the matter for a hearing on the issue of appellant wife's cohabitation with another person because appellant was entitled to a hearing on a decreased need for spousal support. The court affirmed the remainder of the dissolution of marriage judgment.

Plaintiff sued defendant employment-screening company, alleging, inter alia, a cause of action for violations of Pen. Code, §§ 290.4 & 290.46. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted the company's special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16. Plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff's complaint implicitly alleged that the company disclosed information regarding plaintiff on the Megan's law website. The complaint also implicitly alleged that a prospective employer decided not to hire plaintiff based on information disclosed on the website. The court concluded that the company had a constitutional free speech right under the anti-SLAPP statute to republish information disclosed on the website to its clients, notwithstanding the statutory prohibitions on the use of such information. Although plaintiff contended that the company's conduct was illegal or criminal under Pen. Code, § 290.46, the company did not concede that its conduct was criminal, nor did the evidence conclusively establish that its conduct was criminal. Plaintiff could not - as a matter of law - show a probability of prevailing. In creating statutory liability for the use of information disclosed on the website, the legislature did not intend to extend that liability to persons, including businesses, who merely reproduced or republished such information, without actually acting on it. Plaintiff's cause of action, if any, was against his prospective employer, not the company.

The order dismissing plaintiff's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute was affirmed.