/two-people-talking-in-an-office-889940972-5c505f224cedfd0001ddb685.jpg "Procedural Posture")
Plaintiff son sued defendants, a law office, an attorney, an individual, and a limited liability company, in a fair debt collection matter. Defendants sought dismissal, pursuant to the anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, of the son’s claims under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1770 et seq., 1788 et seq., and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Overview
The law offices were hired by the company to collect a debt against the son’s father, from whom the son had been estranged for 20 years. Despite many assertions by the son and his fiancee that they were not the father, nor his wife, bill collectors and the office sent repeated mail, and made repeated telephone calls, to the son’s residence. Individuals also visited their home. After the office obtained a default judgment against the father, it placed a lien on the son’s property, which caused a refinance deal to fall through. The federal district court denied the motion. Defendants relied for their alleged entitlement to anti-SLAPP protection on the litigation privilege; however, they failed to carry their burden because the recording of the lien was a ministerial function that fell outside the “any other official proceeding authorized by law” provision that was contemplated in § 426.16(e). Further, the son’s complaint and briefing in regard to the anti-SLAPP motion raised no suspicion that he pursued his claims other than to succeed on the merits.
Outcome
The district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss. An EEOC attorney represented respondent.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff corporation filed a motion for remand and sanctions in its action against defendant corporation for unfair business practices that violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and for intentional interference with business advantage.
Overview
Plaintiff originally filed an action in federal court against defendant for federal antitrust claims and various state claims. After the federal court granted summary judgment to defendant on the federal claims, defendant urged the judge to dismiss the remaining state claims and the judge did so while stating that the claims could be reasserted in state court. Plaintiff re-filed the claims in state court, and defendant removed the case back to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand and sanctions, and the court granted the motion for remand but denied sanctions. The court held that although diversity jurisdiction did exist, defendant was judicially estopped from asserting jurisdiction in the present case given that it argued for the dismissal of the state claims for lack of jurisdiction before the judge in the prior case. The court also held that a remand in the present case fully comported with the policies underlying the judicial estoppel doctrine. The court found that given defendant’s initial rejection of a federal forum, its claim that a remand would deprive it of the opportunity to defend itself in a federal forum rang hollow.
Outcome
The court granted plaintiff’s motion for remand but denied plaintiff’s request for sanctions in its case against defendant for unfair business practices and intentional interference with business advantage.
