Mendoza v. Hamzeh
215 Cal. App. 4th 799
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Mendoza sued Hamzeh in May 2011 for civil extortion, IIED, and unfair business practices arising from a May 6, 2009 demand letter.
- Hamzeh, while representing Chow in a dispute over Mendoza’s employment as Chow’s manager, sent the demand letter alleging substantial fraud and damages.
- The letter threatened to report Mendoza to state and federal authorities and to disclose alleged wrongdoing to Mendoza’s customers and vendors unless damages exceeding $75,000 were paid.
- Mendoza alleged the letter constituted extortion and sought relief under the anti-SLAPP statute, with Hamzeh seeking fees under CCP 425.16(c).
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, ruled the letter’s content not protected by the statute (citing Flatley), and awarded Mendoza a modest attorney fee award of $3,150.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and upheld fee-shifting, certifying the opinion for partial publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter constitutes protected activity under anti-SLAPP | Mendoza argues the letter is extortion, not protected by anti-SLAPP | Hamzeh argues the matter falls within protected petition/speech | No; the letter constitutes criminal extortion as a matter of law, so anti-SLAPP does not apply. |
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded under 425.16(c) | Mendoza seeks fees as the prevailing party on the motion | Hamzeh argues fees were improper or excessive | Fees awarded to Mendoza affirmed as proper under 425.16(c) for frivolous anti-SLAPP filing. |
| Whether the standard of review for anti-SLAPP rulings is de novo | N/A | N/A | De novo review applied to the anti-SLAPP ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. Supreme Court 2006) (extortion threats not protected by anti-SLAPP; threat plus demand for money deemed extortionate)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. Supreme Court 2006) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; threshold protected activity and probability of prevailing)
- Taheri Law Group v. Evans, 160 Cal.App.4th 482 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008) (defines protected activity under 425.16(e))
- Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002) (timeliness and consideration in opposition to anti-SLAPP)