27 Cal. App. 5th 424
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Ruiz filed a putative class action in 2012 against Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (MBAG) alleging wage-and-hour and PAGA claims. MBAG unsuccessfully sought to compel arbitration based on a 2011 agreement.
- MBAG later attempted to rely on two March 2010 arbitration agreements; those 2010 agreements were not presented early enough in the first petition.
- MBT (Moss Bros. Toy, Inc.) later claimed Ruiz was its employee and that Ruiz signed the 2010 arbitration agreements with MBT; MBT sought to intervene in Ruiz’s suit but was denied as untimely.
- After denial to intervene, MBT sued Ruiz for breach of the 2010 arbitration agreements, alleging Ruiz breached by filing the lawsuit against MBAG and not submitting his employment claims to arbitration; MBT sought damages and specific performance.
- Ruiz brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike MBT’s first amended complaint (FAC). The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP and deemed MBT failed to show a probability of prevailing. MBT appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC "arises from" protected petitioning activity under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 | MBT: FAC is a garden-variety contract/enforcement claim based on Ruiz’s breach of the 2010 arbitration agreements (refusal to arbitrate). | Ruiz: FAC is based on his protected act of filing litigation (the MBAG complaint), which is a petitioning act under subdivision (e)(1)/(2). | Court: FAC arises from Ruiz’s protected filing; the complaint filed against MBAG supplies the basis for MBT’s claims, so anti‑SLAPP applies. |
| Whether MBT showed a probability of prevailing on the merits (if anti‑SLAPP threshold met) | MBT: Presented breach, damages, and sought specific performance; asserted MBAG is a third‑party beneficiary/agent so MBT suffered damages from class litigation. | Ruiz: MBT failed to substantiate probability of prevailing; trial court found MBT did not meet prima facie evidentiary burden. | Court: Affirmed—MBT failed to show a probability of prevailing (discussion of merits was in unpublished portion). |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies two-step anti-SLAPP test and claim vs. cause-of-action distinction)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (acts of filing or litigating can supply basis for breach/fraud claims and thus be subject to anti-SLAPP)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (protected activity must supply elements of challenged claim)
- Century 21 Chamberlain & Associates v. Haberman, 173 Cal.App.4th 1 (demand to arbitrate is not protected petitioning activity)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (distinguishes claims grounded in substantive dispute from claims based on filing litigation)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (defines the operative conduct as the plaintiff's claimed injury-causing act)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (limits enforceability of certain waivers, cited regarding PAGA)
- Vivian v. Labrucherie, 214 Cal.App.4th 267 (claims seeking to impose liability for protected statements/litigation are antI‑SLAPP‑covered)