Mundy v. Lenc
203 Cal. App. 4th 1401
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mundy, in a wheelchair, sued Lene for ADA/related Civil Code violations at Lene's bar after seeing an inaccessible toilet and mirror in 2009.
- The parties settled; Mundy received $2,500, Mehrban $3,000, and Lene released known and unknown claims via a general release.
- Mundy expressly waived Civil Code section 1542 and acknowledged unknown claims could exist.
- Mundy then dismissed the first suit in December 2009 but refiled about a year later alleging a new ADA issue (van-accessible parking) against Lene.
- Lene cross-claimed for breach of the settlement, false/misrepresentation, and abuse of process; Mundy moved to strike under § 425.16; the trial court denied the motion and later awarded Lene attorney fees against Mundy and Mehrban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lenc’s breach of contract claim is subject to the SLAPP statute | Mundy's conduct in filing the second suit is protected petition activity. | Cross-claim arises from Mundy’s petition activity and should be struck unless likelihood of success is shown. | The first prong satisfied; the second prong showed likelihood of success; breach claim not stricken. |
| Whether the release barred Mundy’s second suit under Civil Code section 55 | The parking-lot claim could not have been asserted in the first suit, so release did not bar it. | Release covered all claims that could have been asserted; parking-lot issue was same ongoing harm and thus barred. | Release barred the second suit for past harms; Mundy promised not to sue again for the same cause. |
| Whether Mundy’s SWAP (special motion to strike) was properly denied for misrepresentation/abuse of process claims | Fraud/abuse claims not protected by litigation privilege. | Lene’s fraud/abuse claims fail and Mundy is protected by litigation privilege. | Fraud and abuse-of-process claims reversed; Mundy protected by privilege. |
| Whether attorney fees awarded against Mundy were proper | Fees were warranted due to frivolous SLAPP motion. | No bases for fees since SLAPP determination was incorrect. | Attorney-fee award reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework: prima facie protected activity, then probability of prevailing)
- DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 562 (Cal. App. 4th 2000) (second-prong likelihood of success governs denial of SLAPP motion)
- PrediWave Corp. v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 179 Cal.App.4th 1204 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (review on a clean-slate basis after SLAPP ruling)
- Redevelopment Agency v. City of Berkeley, 80 Cal.App.3d 158 (Cal. App. 3d 1978) (invited error doctrine and waiver principles in appellate review)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2010) (primary rights theory; governs claim preclusion and scope of releases)
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (primary rights theory; same harm/same cause of action preclusion)
- Sperber v. Robinson, 26 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. App. 1994) (waiver/invited error considerations in appeal)