Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow
199 Cal. App. 4th 676
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kramer & Kaslow firm and its member defendants represented Brake Land, Inc. and Abolfalz Sharjari in a prior action; Chitsazzadeh and Shajari were defendants and obtained summary judgment against them.
- Plaintiffs filed a malicious prosecution complaint in July 2009; defendants demurred in December 2009 and moved to strike under § 425.16 on January 13, 2010.
- Plaintiffs argued the motion was untimely under § 425.16, subdivision (f), and that untimeliness made the motion frivolous and sanctionable.
- The trial court found service by substituted means on Sept. 22, 2009 and that the motion was filed more than 60 days after service, thus untimely, and sanctioned with $900 in attorney fees.
- The court also concluded the motion was not properly noticed and that the sanction was based on untimeliness rather than merits, prompting an appeal by Defendants.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to strike on timeliness grounds but reversed the fee award, directing denial of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as untimely | Chitsazzadeh/Shajari argued untimely filing should be stricken. | Kramer & Kaslow argued merits should be considered despite untimeliness. | Untimely filing denied without merits consideration; proper denial of the motion. |
| Whether the fee award under § 425.16(c)(1) is permissible when the motion is untimely | Plaintiffs contend fees allowed if motion frivolous or for delay; untimeliness supports sanction. | Defendants contend fee award is proper if motion was frivolous or for delay. | Fee award reversed; untimeliness alone does not justify sanctions; require merits-based frivolousness or delay motive. |
| Whether the court properly considered the merits of an untimely motion under § 425.16(f) | Court should evaluate merits despite untimeliness to serve anti-SLAPP purposes. | Court may deny untimely motion without merits review. | Court has discretion to consider untimely motions on merits; untimeliness alone does not render motion frivolous. |
| Whether section 128.5 sanctions apply consistently when the complaint was filed after 1994 | 128.5 sanctions provide court with authority to award expenses for frivolous tactics. | 128.5 limits and applicability; timeline matters. | Section 128.5 may apply in anti-SLAPP context; however, the sanction here was improper for other reasons; redo analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (defines anti-SLAPP framework and merit standard)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (establishes probability of prevailing standard)
- Morin v. Rosenthal, 122 Cal.App.4th 673 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (discretion to deny untimely motions; timing implications)
- Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc., 105 Cal.App.4th 1382 (Cal. App. 4th 2003) (untimely hearing notice; sanctions analysis; not sanctioning meritorious untimely motions)
- Moore v. Shaw, 116 Cal.App.4th 182 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (definition of frivolous conduct under §128.5/§425.16)
- Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg, 166 Cal.App.4th 772 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (timing and merits interplay in untimely motions)
- Olsen v. Harbison, 134 Cal.App.4th 278 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (discretion to deny untimely anti-SLAPP motion without merits consideration)
- Lam v. Ngo, 91 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. App. 4th 2001) (timeliness and merits in anti-SLAPP context)