Personal Court Reporters, Inc. v. Rand
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Personal Court Reporters, Inc. sues for breach of contract and common counts for unpaid court reporting fees totaling $32,323.45 plus interest.
- Defendants Gary Rand and Suzanne Rand-Lewis move to strike under CCP 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) arguing their conduct occurred in protected legal proceedings and was in retaliation for disputes over fees.
- Defendants are attorneys representing clients in prior lawsuits; plaintiff provided reporting in those cases.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants’ protest of fees and filing of suit were in retaliation for those protests.
- Trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding the challenged action did not arise from protected activity.
- Appellate court affirms denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and sanctions defendants by requiring $22,000 in attorney fees against them and their counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action arises from protected activity under CCP 425.16 | Rand failed to show protected activity; the suit is for unpaid invoices. | All conduct occurred during protected litigation activities and fees were protested in that context. | No; action not arising from protected activity; not subject to anti-SLAPP. |
| Whether plaintiff demonstrated probability of prevailing on the contract claims | Nonpayment of invoices supports breach of contract and common counts. | Claims arise from protected activity and should be dismissed. | Plaintiff demonstrated likelihood of prevailing; anti-SLAPP inapplicable. |
| Whether the appeal itself is frivolous warranting sanctions | Appeal was not frivolous. | Appeal meritorious; follows prior case law. | Appeal frivolous; sanctions awarded; $22,000 attorney fees ordered to plaintiff. |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate against defendants and/or counsel | Sanctions justified for delay and lack of merit. | Sanctions should target counsel only; defendants rely on advice. | Sanctions imposed jointly and severally on defendants and counsel; fee amount specified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (threshold 'arising from' protected activity; standard guidance for anti-SLAPP)
- Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (interpretation of 'arising from'; protected activity requires basis in actual act)
- Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. App. 2003) (protective activity must be central, not incidental to nonprotected conduct)
- California Back Specialists Medical Group v. Rand, 160 Cal.App.4th 1032 (Cal. App. 2008) (prior rebuff of Rand’s anti-SLAPP arguments; relevance to good faith)
- City of Alhambra v. D’Ausilio, 193 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. App. 2011) (post-protected activity filing does not necessarily mean action arises from protected conduct)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (protects analysis of whether action arises from protected activity)
- USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale, 184 Cal.App.4th 53 (Cal. App. 2010) (anti-SLAPP focus on principal thrust of the claim, not incidental references)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (foundation for anti-SLAPP framework)
- In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982) (standards for appellate sanctions for frivolous appeals)