Soukup v. Hafif 10/17/02 CA2/5

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2003 » Soukup v. Hafif 10/17/02 CA2/5

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B154311

Case Date: 01/16/2003

Preview:Filed 10/17/02 Soukup v. Hafif CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PEGGY J. SOUKUP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREG K. HAFIF et al., Defendants and Appellants. B154311 (Super. Ct. No. BC247941)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory O'Brien, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, Jeanne A. Sterba; Law Offices of James J. Moneer and James J. Moneer for Defendant and Appellant Greg K. Hafif Aitken Aitken & Cohn, Darren O. Aitken and Wylie A. Aitken for Defendants and Appellants Wylie A. Aitken and Law Offices of Wylie A. Aitken. Ronald C. Stock, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Peggy J. Soukup, in pro. per.; Law Offices of Gary L. Tysch and Gary L. Tysch for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

I. INTRODUCTION In these consolidated appeals, Greg K. Hafif, Ronald C. Stock, Wylie A. Aitken, and the Law Offices of Wylie A. Aitken (collectively, defendants) appeal from orders denying their Code of Civil Procedure1, section 425.16 special motions to strike. The present lawsuit is a malicious prosecution and abuse of process action. An underlying lawsuit was dismissed pursuant to section 425.16. This lawsuit followed and defendants, who were the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the underlying litigation, filed special motions to strike notwithstanding the fact their underlying action was dismissed pursuant to section 425.16. We conclude, because the Legislature did not intend such, that the underlying lawsuit did not fall within the protective purview in the present action of section 425.16. Accordingly, we affirm the orders. II. BACKGROUND Defendants' section 425.16 motions were directed at a complaint filed by Peggy J. Soukup (plaintiff) alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of process. In an underlying action, Herbert Hafif, Cynthia D. Hafif, Greg K. Hafif, and the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif sued plaintiff. Mr. Aiken and his firm, and Mr. Stock, are attorneys who represented the Hafifs and the Hafif firm in the underlying action against plaintiff.2 The second amended complaint alleged plaintiff here, Ms. Soukup, a former employee of the Hafif firm, had disclosed to a third party confidential information obtained during her employment. The disclosure was purportedly made in furtherance of a conspiracy to
1 2

All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

We do not reach the question whether an attorney may rely upon his or her exercise of free expression or petition rights while providing legal representation in an underlying lawsuit as a basis for a section 425.16 special motion to strike in subsequent litigation. (See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1113; Shekhter v. Financial Indemnity Co. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 141, 152-154.) 2

defame the Hafif firm. The underlying lawsuit was dismissed in response to a section 425.16 special motion to strike. An appellate court affirmed the dismissal. (Law Offices of Herbert Hafif et al. v. Soukup et al. (April 27, 2000, G020977) [nonpub. opn.].) In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held: the trial court erred in considering the plaintiffs' subjective motives for bringing the action, but the error was harmless; the allegedly actionable conduct consisted of Ms. Soukup's complaints to the Department of Labor, which statements were within the protective purview of section 425.16; and the Hafif plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing a probability of succeeding on their claims against Ms. Soukup. (Ibid.) III. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review A special motion to strike may be filed in response to "`a meritless suit filed primarily to chill the defendant's exercise of First Amendment rights.'" (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 783, quoting Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815, fn. 2, disapproved on another point in Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (S094877, Aug. 29, 2002) __ Cal.4th ___, ___, fn. 5 [2002 WL 1980437, *9, fn. 5] Section 425.16, which was enacted in 1992, authorizes a court to summarily dismiss such meritless suits. (Stats. 1992, ch. 726,

Download Soukup v. Hafif 10/17/02 CA2/5.pdf