Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories, Inc.
3 Cal. App. 5th 118
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Suarez was a consultant for Trigg under an oral agreement to receive fees and a percentage of any future sale; he helped raise capital and later received an increased promised percentage but no written contract.
- Suarez sued Trigg in 2007 (Suarez I) for quantum meruit; the case settled for $175,000 at mediation in July 2008.
- In June 2008 Trigg and its agents exchanged emails about a prospective buyer (Ansell) and directed that the letter of intent and related communications be routed to Trigg’s attorney and not to Trygstad, to keep them privileged and to avoid disclosure in the Rafael Suarez litigation.
- Suarez did not learn of those emails or of the letter of intent until late 2010; in 2014 he sued Trigg seeking rescission of the Suarez I settlement for fraudulent concealment and again asserted quantum meruit.
- Trigg moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), the trial court granted the motion, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suarez’s fraudulent‑concealment/rescission claim arises from protected petitioning/speech activity and thus is subject to anti‑SLAPP | Suarez contends the claim is based on active concealment (not protected speech) of the letter of intent and that the wrongful conduct is not an act in furtherance of petitioning | Trigg argues the concealment and related communications occurred in connection with litigation and settlement strategy for Suarez I and thus are protected petitioning activity under § 425.16 | Court held the alleged concealment and nondisclosure were litigation‑related and within the anti‑SLAPP statute’s protection (first prong satisfied); plaintiff did not press the second‑prong showing on appeal, so dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (California Supreme Court) (anti‑SLAPP protection covers misrepresentations and omissions in connection with litigation)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (California Supreme Court) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis and consideration of pleadings/affidavits)
- Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal.App.4th 953 (California Court of Appeal) (communications in settlement negotiations are protected activity)
- GeneThera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Professional Corp., 171 Cal.App.4th 901 (California Court of Appeal) (settlement communications fall within § 425.16)
- Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, 58 Cal.4th 329 (California Supreme Court) (First Amendment right includes choosing not to speak)
- Renewable Resources Coalition, Inc. v. Pebble Mines Corp., 218 Cal.App.4th 384 (California Court of Appeal) (gravamen test: focus on wrongful conduct, not downstream litigation injury)
- Robles v. Chalilpoyil, 181 Cal.App.4th 566 (California Court of Appeal) (acts outside free speech/petitioning not protected when principal thrust is non‑speech misconduct)
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, 171 Cal.App.4th 1617 (California Court of Appeal) (allegations that principal thrust is non‑petitioning conduct can defeat anti‑SLAPP)
- Coretronic Corp. v. Cozen O’Connor, 192 Cal.App.4th 1381 (California Court of Appeal) (concealment of dual representation not protected when litigation activity is incidental)
- Jespersen v. Zubiate‑Beauchamp, 114 Cal.App.4th 624 (California Court of Appeal) (attorney malpractice for failure to perform ministerial litigation tasks is not protected petitioning activity)