In Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, the California Supreme Court addressed a similar situation. There, a property owner, who objected to proposed development adjacent to his home, initiated administrative and judicial proceedings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While the property owner's action was pending in the Court of Appeal, the developer filed a lawsuit against the property owner and his attorneys seeking damages for abuse of process and conspiracy to abuse process. In his complaint, the developer alleged that the defendants pursued, in addition to his direct appeal, mandate proceedings to obtain a collateral advantage over the developer and to coerce it to pay money to the property owner to dismiss the proceedings. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the litigation privilege contained in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). Although the trial court granted summary judgment, the appellate court reversed. The court held that, based on the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, the tortious conduct was not the publication itself. Rather, the court explained, the tortious conduct was the institution of the CEQA proceedings for an improper purpose. The appellate court further explained that the negotiation statements simply were used as evidence of the defendants' improper objective. In affirming the appellate court's opinion, the California Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff that it was not relying on the negotiation statements as the basis of liability, but was attempting to make evidentiary use of the statement to prove an element of its cause of action. Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., supra, 42 Cal.3d at page 1167. The court reasoned that Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) does not bar evidentiary use of statements made in the course of judicial proceedings. Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., supra, 42 Cal.3d at page 1168. The court held that, "when allegations of misconduct properly put an individual's intent at issue in a civil action, statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding may be used for evidentiary purposes in determining whether the individual acted with the requisite intent. " Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., supra, 42 Cal.3d at page 1168.