This case is a cautionary tale for attorneys. Plaintiff Clarity Co. Consulting LLC, a consulting company, alleged causes of action for breach of contract and other related claims against defendant ONclick, a health care start up company (and other individuals associated with the company) arising out of a failure to pay for services. ONclick’s general counsel acting in his individual capacity filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and concealment arose from “freedom of speech in representing his client.” He argued that he engaged in certain settlement negotiations, which he claimed amounted to protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. However, the trial court found–and the Court of Appeal agreed–that the settlement discussions had nothing to do with the causes of action that were actually alleged. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP Motion and issued sanctions in the amount of $3,300. Defendant filed a notice of appeal which was affirmed.
On top of affirming the appeal, and the trial court’s sanctions, the Court of Appeal granted plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for taking a frivolous appeal. Under section 907, “When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just.” The court granted the motion on the basis that the appeal did not involve a unique issue, was amenable to easy analysis based on existing law, was not complex, and that any reasonable attorney “would have understood that the allegedly injury-producing conduct was defendants’ fraudulent, unprotected misrepresentations (fifth cause of action) and concealment (sixth cause of action) that preceded litigation-related settlement discussions over respondents’ unpaid invoices.”
Leave a Reply