Defamation Case Over Lawyer’s Remarks to Press Was SLAPP

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Page 1

Court of Appeal:

Defamation Case Over Lawyer’s Remarks to Press Was SLAPP

Opinion Says Counsel’s Alleged Assertion That She Believed That Private Enforcement Actions Initiated by Plaintiff Smelled Like ‘Shakedown’ Is Not Actionable, Claim That She Accused Him of Extortion Was Based on Hearsay

By Kimber Cooley, associated press

Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday that a trial judge erred in denying an anti-SLAPP motion filed by an attorney accused of defamation by another member of the bar who asserted that the defendant falsely told members of the media that the plaintiff had engaged in an extortion scheme by filing private enforcement actions against her clients and that, “to her knowledge, there was no evidence” of wrongdoing by those she represented.

In an unpublished opinion by Justice Martha K. Gooding joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez and Orange Superior Court Judge Julianne Bancroft, sitting by assignment, the court found that Orange Superior Court Judge David A. Hoffer properly ruled that the statements are protected speech but wrongly concluded that the plaintiff had established the “minimal merit” required to withstand an anti-SLAPP motion.

The alleged statements at issue were made to the press in 2023 relating to stories reporting on the plaintiff, Newport Beach attorney Sebastian Medvei, having filed a number of lawsuits under the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”), codified at Business & Professions Code §22440 et seq., on behalf of his client Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel LLC.

Statutory Language

Under the statutory scheme, it is unlawful for “any person, for compensation, other than persons authorized to practice law…to engage in the business or act in the capacity of an immigration consultant” and any party “who, upon information and belief, claims a violation of this chapter has been committed…may bring a civil action for injunctive relief on behalf of the general public and, upon prevailing, shall recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Medvei has initiated a host of lawsuits under the ICA against consultancy firms, run by non-lawyers, that promise to help with form preparation and other tasks associated with immigration proceedings. Ann Lakhman of the Orange-based firm Lakhman & Kasamatsu LLP, has represented some of the defendants targeted in the lawsuits.

On Oct. 19, 2023, Los Angeles television station KNBC published an online piece entitled “Lawyer sues hundreds of local small businesses for allegedly violating law. Some call it ‘extortion.’ ” The story, based on the content of a broadcast report, is no longer publicly available.In the article, author Eric Leonard reported that Lakhman had “said she believes the cases she’s working on stink of a shakedown” and that “the complaints filed against her clients included no evidence of a violation, and so far, she found no violations when she prepared her cases for trial.”

Medvei filed a complaint against Lakhman, her client Shadi Afridi, and another party in January 2024, asserting a single cause of action for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that Lakhman had engaged in “a malicious scheme to harass and defame [Medvei] in hopes that it would deter [Medvei] from pursuing [Medvei’s] client’s case against” Afridi for violations of the ICA and that the lawyer “participated…by stating to the press that [Medvei] was engaged in extortion and by stating that in the cases [Medvei] brought wherein….Lakhman…was attorney for the defendant…the evidence showed no violations.”

Afridi was found earlier this year to have violated the ICA. In his opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Lakhman, Medvei cited a Spanish-language piece, published on Oct. 20, 2023 by Telemundo 52, which credits Leonard as the author. A certified translation provided by Medvei explained that Lakhman had “said she believes the cases she is working on reek of extortion.”

Hoffer denied Lakhman’s anti-SLAPP motion in November of last year, ruling that the alleged statements were protected activity under California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 but that they were “defamatory per se.”

Anti-SLAPP Motion

Addressing the first prong of the the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16—whether utterances were protected speech—Gooding said that Lakhman’s alleged statements contributed to a public discussion of a public issue, within the meaning of subd. (e)(4), explaining:

“The NBC Los Angeles article and the broadcast, among other things, noted Medvei had filed more than 300 cases, featured interviews with defendants who had been sued by Medvei, and included Lakhman’s comment that the ICA had been used as a weapon. Medvei asserts there was no issue of public interest here because the alleged statements by Lakhman purportedly targeted him individually. Although the alleged statements to the press concerned Medvei and his litigation against Lakhman’s clients, it also implicated a broader public issue regarding potential misuse of the ICA.”

She rejected Medvei’s argument that the statements are unprotected speech because they were illegal efforts to try to gain an advantage against him in the underlying ICA cases, remarking:

“Medvei did not set forth the elements of the crime of extortion, much less offer evidence demonstrating Lakhman’s conduct met each of these elements.” Addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis—whether the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing on the merits—Gooding opined that “Lakhman’s statement that, to her knowledge, there was no evidence demonstrating her clients had violated the law is simply a ‘[d]eprecatory statement[]’ regarding the merits of Medvei’s complaints” and was nothing more than a predictable opinion by a lawyer representing her client.

As to Medvei’s assertions that she said that he was engaged in a scheme of extortion, the justice said:

“Medvei relied on the Telemundo article and its English translation to support his assertion that Lakhman said ‘she believes the cases she is working on reek of extortion.’ Lakhman, however, argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her objection to both the article and the translation as inadmissible hearsay; she contends Medvei failed to submit admissible evidence that she actually said he committed extortion. We agree the court abused its discretion in overruling her objections. Because both the Telemundo article and its translation were inadmissible hearsay, Medvei failed to submit admissible evidence that Lakhman defamed him by asserting he committed extortion.”

Unpersuaded by Medvei’s assertion, raised for the first time on appeal, that the “stink of a shakedown” comment was the equivalent of accusing him of extortion, Gooding commented:

“Even if Medvei could properly raise this argument…, it fails. The statement in the NBC Los Angeles article that Lakhman told the reporter ‘she believes the cases she’s working on stink of a shakedown’ is a nonactionable opinion. It cannot reasonably be understood as Lakhman expressly or impliedly making a factual assertion that Medvei was committing the crime of extortion. It was simply a ‘[d]eprecatory statement[ ] regarding the merits of litigation’…‘…[that] cannot be the basis for a defamation claim.’ ”

The case is Medvei v. Lakhman, G064902.