Roger Cleveland Golf Co. v. Krane & Smith, APC
225 Cal. App. 4th 660
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- RCG sued Sportsmark and Attorneys for malicious prosecution after the Sportsmark action resolved in trial court and during its appeal.
- The trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion and struck the complaint as time barred, including tolling during the Sportsmark appeal, and awarded attorneys’ fees.
- The central issues concern accrual and tolling of malicious-prosecution claims, and which statute of limitations applies to actions by a plaintiff against an adversary or adversary’s attorney.
- California law under Gibbs v. Haight and Rare Coin holds accrual occurs at judgment with tolling during appeal, recommencing after remittitur, making the seven-month appellate period relevant to timing.
- The court concluded §340.6 does not apply to malicious-prosecution actions against attorneys and that §335.1 (two-year limit) governs, with tolling during an appeal; the anti-SLAPP ruling was proper and fees were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs? | RCG argues §340.6(a) applies to attorneys (Vafi/Yee). | Attorneys contend §335.1 governs; tolling not governed by §340.6(a). | §335.1 applies; tolling during appeal recognized. |
| When does a malicious-prosecution claim accrue? | Accrual per Gibbs/Rare Coin upon judgment, tolled during appeal. | Accrual follows standard tolled periods under §340.6(a). | Accrual at judgment; tolling during appeal; remittitur ends tolling. |
| Was the anti-SLAPP motion properly granted? | RCG maintained lack of malice and probable cause. | Attorneys showed lack of probability of prevailing and protected activity. | Anti-SLAPP motion proper; malice not established. |
| Was malice proven to sustain the claim? | Evidence showed improper purpose and ill will by Attorneys. | Evidence did not establish improper purpose; statements were litigation-day colleagues’ rhetoric. | Insufficient malice shown; supports affirmance of anti-SLAPP order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (malicious-prosecution elements; accrual concepts)
- Gibbs v. Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel, 183 Cal.App.3d 716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (accrual rule: judgment + remittitur tolling; start/stop)
- Rare Coin Galleries, Inc. v. A-Mark Coin Co., Inc., 202 Cal.App.3d 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (refined Gibbs; remittitur signaling end of tolling)
- Laird v. Blacker, 2 Cal.4th 606 (Cal. 1992) (actual-injury accrual; tolling in §340.6 context)
- Vafi v. McCloskey, 193 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (applies §340.6(a) to attorney actions per plain language)
- Yee v. Cheung, 220 Cal.App.4th 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (supports §340.6(a) applicability to attorney actions; public policy concerns)
- Drummond v. Desmarais, 176 Cal.App.4th 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (stay pending appeal; ancillary procedural guidance)
- Mundy v. Lenc, 203 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (timeliness in Malicious Prosecution; forfeit issues)
- Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 184 Cal.App.4th 313 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (probable-cause standard for attorney actions; legal-tenability)