Safari Club International v. Rudolph, No. 14-56236 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDr. Lawrence P. Rudolph filed suit against SCI after various SCI members accused him of official misconduct, stripped him of his awards, and kicked him out of the association. Rudolph surreptitiously recorded a conversation with his friend John Whipple, SCI's president, and posted it on YouTube to exonerate himself. Whipple and SCI filed numerous claims against Rudolph, including statutory invasion of privacy, negligence per se, and common law invasion of privacy. The district court granted Rudolph’s motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, as to four claims, but denied relief as to three claims. Rudolph appeals. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied Rudolph's motion as to the claims for violation of California Penal Code section 632, negligence per se, and common law invasion of privacy. In this case, although Rudolph can show that those claims arise from activity he took in furtherance of his right to free speech, plaintiffs can show a reasonable probability of prevailing on each of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment; denied Rudolph's corresponding request for an additional attorney fee award; and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: California Anti-SLAPP Statute. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying Dr. Lawrence Rudolph’s motion to strike under California’s anti- SLAAP statute plaintiffs’ claims for violation of California Penal Code section 632, negligence per se, and common law invasion of privacy, arising after Rudolph surreptitiously recorded a conversation and posted it on the Internet for public consumption. The panel held that though Rudolph could show that plaintiffs’ claims arose from activity Rudolph took in furtherance of his right to free speech, plaintiffs could show a reasonable probability of prevailing on each of the challenged claims. The panel accordingly affirmed the district court’s denial of Rudolph’s motion to strike under the anti-SLAAP statute. The panel denied Rudolph’s request for an additional attorney fee award. The panel remanded for further proceedings. SAFARI CLUB V. RUDOLPH 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.