|
|
Madrid v. Schreiber9/14/2005
R>
B. Lack of Probable Cause
In determining whether a party had probable cause to bring or continue to prosecute a cause of action, we must make an objective determination of the reasonableness of the defendants' conduct; that is, we must determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to defendant, the institution and prosecution of the claim was legally tenable. (See Zamos, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 971; Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 878, 881.) " he existence or nonexistence of probable cause is a legal question to be resolved by the court . . . ." (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 817.)
Schreiber alleged that Madrid, while acting on behalf of Parkside, "created and allowed to exist a hostile work environment and discriminated against and harassed [Schreiber] on the basis of [Schreiber's] sex." In support of the anti-SLAPP motion, Schreiber and Solo submitted a declaration by Solo. With respect to the sexual harassment claim, Solo states: "[Schreiber] . . . informed me that in her opinion, [Madrid] was attempting to rekindle their past romantic relationship. [Schreiber] provided me with additional facsimiles and handwritten notes from [Madrid] which appeared to support her position that [Madrid's] desired to rekindle his romantic relationship may have motivated the underlying offer and the subsequent termination of their business relationship."
One of the referenced documents is a copy of a January 31, 2002, facsimile from Madrid to Schreiber, which begins: "The sales office for tract 16218 should be open in 2 - 3 weeks and we will be [choosing] a sales representative soon. [ ] You are my favorite candidate[;] however I cannot allow my adoreing you as a person and woman interfere or confuse sound business judgments. [ ] All my comments, I make of your character are a true and sincere reflection on how I feel about you as a genuinely neat person and woman. [ ] I am pleased to have this opportunity to present a counter proposal to you for the sales position." The facsimile then proceeds to address terms of a proposal for a sales position.
The second document is a copy of a March 4, 2002, facsimile, in which Madrid informs Schreiber that Parkside will use a "marketing firm" to sell the Fontana homes and will no longer need Schreiber's services. The facsimile states: "I owe a fiduciary obligation to the partnership to enter into contracts and spend partnership monies in the most efficient way possible. [ ] I also have a loyal duty to you & [your daughter] to never abandon you gals as a friend, and help you when I can, until such time you express a desire differently or I see you in the care of others. [ ] At this point I want you to fax me a bill for all your advice, & efforts to date on the Fontana project." The facsimile then addresses payment of the bill and arrangements concerning a real estate sale
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|