Lanz v. Goldstone
243 Cal. App. 4th 441
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Lanz (attorney) represented Bolio in a Marvin action under a contingent fee contract that provided a charging lien and higher trial fee percentage; the Marvin action settled at trial with Bolio receiving $10,000 and a Modesto house (mortgage $106,000).
- A post-settlement fee dispute arose; Lanz filed suit to enforce his attorney lien and recover fees. Bolio defaulted; Goldstone later appeared for Bolio, obtained relief from default, answered, and filed a three‑count cross‑complaint against Lanz alleging breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and declaratory relief and asserting violations of ethics rules (including moral turpitude).
- Lanz moved to dismiss/for judgment on the pleadings and summary adjudication; two claims were dismissed as judicially estopped by Bolio’s bankruptcy schedules, and the remaining declaratory‑relief fee claim was tried and decided for Lanz, awarding fees and upholding his lien.
- Lanz then sued Goldstone for malicious prosecution based on Goldstone’s filing/prosecution of Bolio’s cross‑complaint; Goldstone moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute, which the trial court denied.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding Lanz met the anti‑SLAPP second‑prong burden (probability of prevailing) on all three malicious‑prosecution elements: favorable termination, lack of probable cause, and malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lanz) | Defendant's Argument (Goldstone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of anti‑SLAPP motion was correct (prong two) | Lanz showed a probability of prevailing on malicious prosecution | Goldstone argued Lanz cannot show probability of success on elements | Affirmed: Lanz met the low threshold to show probability of success |
| Favorable termination of prior action | Trial court’s judgment for Lanz on fee claim and dismissal of cross‑claims (some on estoppel) constitutes favorable termination as to causes relied upon | Goldstone: dismissal of two counts on bankruptcy/pleading grounds is not favorable termination | Court: favorable termination exists—one claim adjudicated on merits and dismissal/abandonment of others can reflect lack of success and support malicious‑prosecution claim |
| Probable cause for filing cross‑complaint | Cross‑complaint lacked objective legal basis (rule 3‑300 and statutory disclosure claims were untenable; contingent fee context controlled) | Goldstone: had reasonable, honest belief and relied on client’s testimony and investigation | Court: no evidence Goldstone researched controlling law (e.g., Plummer), claims were objectively weak, so probable cause lacking for key accusations |
| Malice (improper purpose) | Goldstone threatened litigation to force Lanz to abandon fees; little/no research; aggressive settlement tactics show improper purpose | Goldstone: was zealously representing client and had honest belief in claims | Court: record supports inference of malice (threats, lack of research, timing, and collateral motives), so malice shown for SLAPP prong two |
Key Cases Cited
- Bertero v. National General Corp., 13 Cal.3d 43 (Cal. 1974) (elements and policy rationale for malicious prosecution; groundless theories within a suit are actionable)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994) (reaffirming Bertero; malicious prosecution may be based on some theories even if others had probable cause)
- Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal.4th 336 (Cal. 2004) (analysis of favorable termination; court looks to whether disposition reflects lack of merit)
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989) (probable cause and malice: factual disputes over the actor’s knowledge can preclude summary disposition)
- Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLP, 184 Cal.App.4th 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (contingent fee agreements need not comply with RPC 3‑300; charging lien in contingent fee context does not create an adverse interest)
- Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham, 72 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (favorable termination discussion; severable claims and partial favorable results can support malicious prosecution)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (anti‑SLAPP framework; two‑step analysis and burdens)