63 Cal.App.5th 117
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Ana Jimenez brought a precertification wage-and-hour class action against Oheck (and related parties), represented by attorneys Mahoney and Ramirez, also asserting PAGA claims.
- Parties negotiated and executed a settlement that required Oheck to pay $50,000 (part to plaintiff, part to counsel); the settlement called for dismissal of Jimenez’s individual claims with prejudice and dismissal of class and PAGA claims without prejudice; dismissal was a condition to payment.
- The trial court approved dismissal of the class claims without notice (implying no prejudice) and dismissed the case accordingly.
- Months later Oheck sued Jimenez and her attorneys for malicious prosecution, alleging the class claims had been voluntarily dismissed (not settled) and therefore terminated in Oheck’s favor.
- Jimenez and her attorneys filed anti‑SLAPP motions; the trial court denied them, finding Oheck made a prima facie showing of malicious prosecution. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the settlement terminated the action and settlement dismissals do not, as a matter of law, constitute a favorable termination for malicious prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oheck) | Defendant's Argument (Jimenez/Attorneys) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable-termination element for malicious prosecution | Class claims were voluntarily dismissed (not part of settlement), so they were terminated in Oheck’s favor | Entire action (including class claims) was resolved by settlement; settlement dismissals are not favorable terminations | Settlement ended the action; settlement dismissal does not establish favorable termination as a matter of law; anti‑SLAPP relief required |
| Severability of class claims from individual claims | Class claims can be treated separately from individual claims for favorable-termination analysis | A class action is procedural; the representative has a single substantive claim that was settled, so class claims are not independently severable | Class claims are not severable; representative’s settlement of her claim moots the class procedure; cannot treat class claims as separately favorably terminated |
| When a dismissal pursuant to settlement can be a favorable termination | Some agreements or clear bilateral compromises can show the dismissal was not merely a settlement and may reflect merits | This case involved a settlement conditioned on dismissal and payment, so it does not reflect a merits-based favorable termination | General rule: dismissals pursuant to settlement ordinarily are not favorable terminations; here settlement precluded favorable-termination showing; anti‑SLAPP motions must be granted and fees awarded (with limited remand issues) |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (anti‑SLAPP two-step and probability-of-prevailing standard)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (anti‑SLAPP procedural summary-judgment‑like framework)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (malicious prosecution requires favorable resolution of entire action)
- Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal.App.4th 1576 (class action is procedural; settling representative’s individual claim extinguishes class procedure)
- Dalany v. American Pacific Holding Corp., 42 Cal.App.4th 822 (settlement dismissals generally do not constitute favorable termination)
- Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v. Naumann, 157 Cal.App.4th 1385 (analysis of what types of dismissals reflect on merits for malicious prosecution)
- Roche v. Hyde, 51 Cal.App.5th 757 (settlement can be scrutinized to determine whether dismissal reflects a bilateral compromise or unilateral voluntary dismissal)
- Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, 61 Cal.App.5th 136 (one final judgment in a case; cannot parse representative’s claims from the case as a whole)