Jay v. Mahaffey CA4/3
218 Cal. App. 4th 1522
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- JR Enterprises leased mobilehome park property in Anaheim under a long-term ground lease; Lawrences owned the property and sought lease termination.
- JR’s limited partners were dragged into the dispute via Roe amendments; most were later dismissed, except Rochelle.
- In 2010–2011, Mahaffey and Ghormley represented the Lawrences and engaged in multiple cross-complaints and interpleader actions against JR and partners.
- Emails and communications show threats of ongoing litigation and potential new actions, including a supposed ‘round two’ and substantial anticipated attorney fees.
- The limited partners moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause and to allege malice in a malicious prosecution action; the court denied anti-SLAPP motions at trial.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling the limited partners proved lack of probable cause and malice, and that the action arose from protected petitioning activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does anti-SLAPP apply to the malicious prosecution claim? | Limited partners: action arises from protected petition activity. | Lawrences and attorneys: no protected activity or improper use of litigation. | Yes; action arises from protected petition activity. |
| Was there a lack of probable cause for the earlier cross-complaint actions? | Limited partners were passive investors with no role; claims lack merit. | Evidence shows potential grounds; causation and scope could create liability. | Yes, lack of probable cause was shown as to the limited partners. |
| Was there malice sufficient to defeat anti-SLAPP protection? | Malice evidenced by improper purpose to pressure settlement and generate fees. | Malice not established or would be disputed by counsel’s reliance on advice. | Yes; substantial evidence of malice supported defeat of anti-SLAPP. |
| Was the dismissal of limited partners a favorable termination for malice purposes? | Dismissals were on merits and thus favorable. | Dismissals were business decisions, not merits-based. | Yes; voluntary dismissal presumed favorable termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (defines two-step anti-SLAPP framework)
- Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC, 206 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. App. 4th 2012) (probable cause standard for anti-SLAPP summary review)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (admissibility and evaluation of evidence on anti-SLAPP motions)
- Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 41 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2007) (favorable termination and malice analysis in malicious prosecution)
- Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. App. 1998) (malice standard and inference in prosecutorial context)
- HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co., 118 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. App. 2004) (evidence, proof, and standards in anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Kreeger v. Wanland, 141 Cal.App.4th 826 (Cal. App. 2006) (multiple grounds in underlying action; malice can lie for any ground)