Law Practice
Aug. 6, 2002
SLAPP Ruling Curtails Malicious Prosecution
LOS ANGELES - In a ruling that could curtail malicious prosecution suits drastically, the state's high court has held that a trial judge's denial - under the anti-SLAPP statute - of a motion to strike in an underlying case bars malicious prosecution because it gives probable cause for the original case.
The panel ruled on a case that originated from a 1996 protest at a Moreno Valley middle school.
It held that denial of a motion to strike "does establish the existence of probable cause, where ... the trial court's ruling was predicated on a finding that the action had potential merit."
"Because malicious prosecution suits have the potential to penalize and deter the legitimate invocation of the judicial process for redress of grievances," the unanimous panel wrote Thursday, "only claims that a reasonable litigant or attorney would have seen as lacking all merit should form the basis for such a suit." Wilson v. Parker, 2002 DJDAR 8635 (Cal. Aug. 1, 202).
Mark L. Kiefer, counsel for two lawyers who were sued in connection with the controversy, praised the high court's ruling and predicted that it will "knock out" many malicious prosecution actions.
"This is a matter that hadn't been tested at the Supreme Court level," said Kiefer of Los Angeles's Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Kilduff, Day & Lindstrom. "Now, with frivolous [malicious prosecution] suits, we'll be able to get rid of them right away."
David D. Werner, counsel for two of the Moreno Valley school employees who filed the original suit over a heated protest at the school by the Mexican Political Association, said the court's decision provides "a new way by which we can establish probable cause."
Before the decision, Werner said, "the law of the state has always been that once a case goes all the way through trial and there's a decision in favor of a plaintiff, there's a conclusive presumption of probable cause" -- notwithstanding a reversal by the Court of Appeal."
"In this case, the matter never went to trial," said Werner of Riverside's Stream & Stream. "We argued that [the trial judge's] determination that there was a likelihood that we'd prevail established probable cause."
Yvonne M. Renfrew, a Los Angeles sole practitioner who represented members of the Mexican Political Association - which appealed the matter to the Supreme Court - said she "respectfully" disagrees with the ruling.
"I believe the decision [the court] ultimately reached will have the affect of undermining the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute," Renfrew said. "I think people who believe they have been slapped with an unmeritorious case will be reluctant to use the statute."
"Even if someone pursues the matter and proves that a lawsuit was a valid SLAPP suit, they still won't be able to sue for malicious prosecution if a judge incorrectly decides it isn't [a SLAPP suit]," Renfrew added.
The Legislature enacted the Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute in 1992. It is designed to combat defamation claims and other suits intended to bar the exercise of free speech or participation rights. Many activists and journalists have used the law to fight suits retaliating against their criticism.
The underlying lawsuit, Kuzmich v. Mexican Political Association, RIC283066 (Riverside Super. Ct., filed 1998), was filed by teachers and administrators at Vista Heights Middle School in Moreno Valley. They alleged that association members harassed and defamed them during a demonstration at the school.
Shortly after the suit was filed, the association moved to strike the action based on the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that it violated their free speech and petition rights.
The trial court disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs had established a "sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment."
The defendants filed a petition for writ of mandate with the 4th District Court of Appeal, and the appellate court granted it in part. The action vacated the Superior Court's order denying the motion to strike by the Mexican Political Association and Raul Wilson, an association officer.
In granting the writ, the Court of Appeal held that the organized protests came within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute.
"The MPA," the appellate court held, "cannot be held liable for the actions of certain of its members, and it has no liability in tort for sponsoring a protest on an issue of public significance."
After the appellate court's decision, Wilson and the association brought a malicious prosecution suit against the Kuzmich plaintiffs and their attorneys. The trial court, however, sustained demurrers by the attorney defendants and two of the teachers and dismissed the action. The 4th District Court of Appeal affirmed that decision last year.
According to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal's observation that the denial of a SLAPP motion to strike "parallels the denial of a motion for summary judgment" was based on the case of Roberts v. Sentry Life Insurance, 76 Cal.App.4th 375 (1999).
That case held that "denial of a defense summary judgment motion normally establishes probable cause."
Jason Armstrong & Sean Windle
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com