Jsj Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
205 Cal. App. 4th 1512
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- JSJ filed this anti-SLAPP appeal after the trial court denied its motion to strike.
- Garcia, with Mehrban as his attorney, litigated ADA-related claims in 2008 and 2009 against JSJ; the 2009 action was dismissed due to res judicata, after a court ruled the pleading a sham and barred by res judicata.
- JSJ later sued Mehrban and Garcia for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, alleging the 2009 complaint was filed without merit and for retribution.
- Mehrban contended the 2009 complaint arose from protected activity and that JSJ could not show probable success on abuse of process or malicious prosecution.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion; the appellate court reverses, holds the litigation privilege bars abuse of process, and that the 2009 dismissal is not a favorable termination for malicious prosecution, remanding for attorney-fee determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JSJ’s claims arise from protected activity under 425.16 | JSJ’s claims arise from filing the 2009 lawsuit | The filing was protected activity | Yes, arising from protected activity |
| Whether JSJ can prevail on abuse of process given the litigation privilege | Abuse of process claim should survive | Litigation privilege bars it | Barred by the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47) |
| Whether Garcia’s voluntary dismissal after res judicata constitutes a favorable termination | Dismissal with prejudice reflects merit | Dismissal was procedural/res judicata bar, not merits-based | Not a favorable termination; anti-SLAPP should be granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (articulates purposes of anti-SLAPP statute and public policy)
- Rohde v. Wolf, 154 Cal.App.4th 28 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (litigation privilege relevance to anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Contemporary Services Corp. v. Staff Pro Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 1043 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (filing a complaint is petitioning activity under 425.16)
- Warren v. Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, 220 Cal.App.3d 1297 (Cal. App. 1990) (voluntary dismissal post-bar order not necessarily favorable termination)
- Dalany v. American Pacific Holding Corp., 42 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. App. 1996) (favorable termination requires termination on merits)
- Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal.4th 336 (Cal. 2004) (distinguishes substantive merits from procedural terminations)
- Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1996) (res judicata as procedural defense; not a merits determination)