|
|
Madrid v. Schreiber9/14/2005
of Regulations, section 2726. Because there was no evidence of a written employment contract, Schreiber's breach of contract action failed. With respect to the cause of action for sexual harassment, the court concluded that Schreiber "had not produced any facts concerning [Madrid's] conduct which represented any form of illegal harassment under California law." Regarding the second cause of action for violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (i), the court concluded that there was no evidence that Parkside was Schreiber's employer and, as for Madrid, that there was no violation of any "obligation to maintain a harassment-free workplace environment." Judgment was thereafter entered in the defendants' favor and against Schreiber. Schreiber did not appeal from that judgment.
B. The Malicious Prosecution Action
In January 2004, Madrid and Parkside commenced an action against Schreiber and Solo for malicious prosecution (the Malicious Prosecution Action). In addition to alleging the facts of the commencement of the Harassment Action, the granting of the motions for summary judgment, and the entry of judgment in the prior case, their complaint alleged: the Harassment Action was initiated without probable cause because there was no written employment agreement or employment relationship between Schreiber and the plaintiffs, and no sexual conduct by Madrid; Schreiber and Solo acted with malice because Schreiber attempted to use a prior relationship between her and Madrid "to insinuate that he had tried to re-establish a sexual relationship with her and that she was unwilling to do so"; additionally, Schreiber and Solo "persisted in pursuing the [Harassment Action], despite the evidence of clear legal authority under California law that any contract for professional services between either [Madrid] or [Parkside], on the one hand, and [Schreiber], on the other, had to be in writing and mutually agreed upon." Malice in pursuing the lawsuit was also evidenced by allegations and statements by Solo that Madrid was an alcoholic and had "overactive hormones," as well as "hostile confrontations" between Solo and Madrid. Madrid and Parkside further alleged several instances in which their attorneys had pointed out the lack of merit in the Harassment Action and requested that the action be dismissed, which Solo rejected.
Schreiber and Solo responded by filing a special motion to strike the complaint, or "anti-SLAPP motion," pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion, stating that Madrid and Parkside had made a prima facie showing that the Harassment Action was pursued with malice, and that the facts supported a conclusion that Schreiber and Solo were "simply trying to squeeze a settlement on a baseless case."
ANALYSIS
"Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion `requires the court to engage in a two-step process. First, the court decides whe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|