We emphasize that our conclusion that Mauro’s communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law are based on the specific and extreme circumstances of this case. Id. at 330-31.ĭespite the foregoing, the court did attempt to cabin its holding to the facts of the case: The court also reasoned that Mauro’s vaguer threats to report Flatley for unspecified violations of immigration and tax law established extortion because they put Flatley in fear of being accused, and were placed even more firmly within the realm of extortion because these alleged violations were unrelated to Mauro’s client’s claim against Flatley. The court held that Mauro’s threats to accuse Flatley of rape squarely met the definition of extortion in that he “threatened to ‘accuse’ Flatley of, or ‘impute to him,’ ‘crimes’ and ‘disgrace.’” Id. at 330 (citing Pen. The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal and held that because Mauro’s letter and subsequent phone calls constituted extortion, were illegal as a matter of law, and thus unprotected by the litigation privilege. The trial court agreed with Flatley and denied Mauro’s anti-SLAPP motion. ![]() Flatley argued that Mauro’s letter constituted extortion and was therefore illegal conduct unprotected by the litigation privilege. ![]() Mauro filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Flatley’s complaint, arguing that his demand letter, upon which Flatley’s complaint was premised, was subject to the litigation privilege. In subsequent phone calls with Flatley’s attorneys, Mauro said it would take “seven figures” to settle the matter and prevent him from “going public.” Id. at 311.Īfter declining to pay Mauro, Flatley sued Mauro for, among other things, civil extortion. The letter also threatened to send press releases to a laundry list of media outlets if Flatley declined to settle. State, Local, Commonwealth U.K., or International Laws, shall immediately be turned over to any and all appropriate authorities” if Flatley did not immediately settle the case. In the demand letter, Mauro threatened that “all pertinent information and documentation, if in violation of an U.S. Dean Mauro on behalf of a woman who claimed that Flatley had raped her in a Las Vegas hotel room. In that case, Michael Flatley, the “Lord of the Dance” himself, received a demand letter from attorney D. The seminal case on the issue of civil extortion in California is Flatley v. put the intended victim of the extortion in fear of being accused of some crime.’” Id. (quoting People v. Moreover, the victim need not be accused of a specific crime-vague intimations suffice, provided that “‘the accusations. Extortionate threats are criminal regardless of “whether or not the victim committed the crime or indiscretion upon which the threat is based and whether or not the person making the threat could have reported the victim to the authorities or arrested the victim.” Flatley v. Threats that may be legal on their own can become extortionate “when coupled with a demand for money.” Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. Moreover, attempted extortion is just as punishable as successful extortion. immigration status or suspected immigration status.” Pen. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person. Fear, for purposes of extortion, “ may be induced by a threat of any of the following: 1. induced by a wrongful use of force or fear. Extortion is defined as “ the obtaining of property from another, with his consent. This article discusses the often fine and blurry line between a strongly worded demand letter and an extortionate threat.īefore exploring the case law, a quick primer on the law defining civil extortion is in order. ![]() However, while it may be only human to try and maximize the leverage present in the demand letter in order to effectuate a result, making threats to report someone in a demand letter can result in liability for civil extortion and place the demand letter outside of the litigation privilege. While it is standard practice to threaten civil litigation, sometimes the sender will contemplate other threats, such as threatening criminal prosecution or calling the IRS (or FTB). When sending a demand letter, whether the sender is an attorney or a lay person, it can be tempting to come in guns blazing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |