California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ibrahim v. Extreme Auto Recovery, Inc., A138663 (Cal. App. 2014):
First, Ibrahim did not raise this objection in the trial court. After the reply was filed, Ibrahim personally appeared at the hearing on the motion and presented argument to the court. He did not argue that the litigation privilege had been improperly raised in the reply brief. Nor did he object when the court ruled from the bench, as it had in its tentative ruling, that summary judgment would be granted largely on the basis of the privilege. Nor did Ibrahim move to set aside the court's written order on that ground. Accordingly, the argument is forfeited.4 (Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.