Briganti v. Chow, No. B289046 (D2d4 Nov. 22, 2019)
This is a pretty boring anti-SLAPP appeal. The claims clearly arose from protected activity, but as to the claim appealed, plaintiff made a prima facie case.
But appellant, in what, afforded the utmost charity, could be described as an extremely poor attempt at humor, decided to make some sexist comments about the trial judge in his brief. Did he think that would have traction? In California? In the Second District, where the trial judge now sits in the 2/7? In the 2/4, where he was certain to draw either Justice Manella or Justice Collins, maybe both?
That is some dumb, dumb lawyering. So the Court, in a decision written by Justice Currey, publishes, notwithstanding the boringness, to call out defendant’s counsel for being a sexist jerk. The panel goes out of the way to note that what went down is not just unethically sexist, it’s also just really ineffective practice.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment