Roche v. Hyde

Summary

This California Court of Appeal opinion and subsequent modification order concern Brendan Roche’s malicious prosecution action against Ram’s Gate Winery, its members, and attorney Thomas F. Hyde. The court held that Roche made a sufficient prima facie showing of favorable termination and lack of probable cause to defeat the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, and affirmed the denial of those motions. The July 29, 2020 order modified one sentence in the June 30, 2020 opinion without changing the judgment.

Holdings

1. A unilateral dismissal made to avoid an impending terminating sanction is presumptively a favorable termination for the opposing party. A negotiated reduction or payment of attorney fees that is ancillary to the merits, without a release or compromise of the underlying claims, does not convert the dismissal into a settlement that defeats favorable termination.
2. Roche made a prima facie showing that Ram’s Gate lacked probable cause to bring or maintain the underlying action because knowledge of material information possessed or constructively known by its transactional attorneys was imputable to Ram’s Gate.
3. The court declined to create a special procedural rule requiring inferences to be drawn in favor of a malicious prosecution defendant when evaluating probable cause at the second step of an anti-SLAPP motion. Ordinary anti-SLAPP review principles apply, and reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff.
4. The interim adverse judgment rule did not require dismissal of Roche’s malicious prosecution claim at the anti-SLAPP stage because the underlying summary adjudication ruling was potentially undermined by egregious discovery misconduct, implicating the fraud-or-perjury exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ram’s Gate’s unilateral dismissal of the underlying action, accompanied by payment of some but not all of Roche’s attorney fees and no release or compromise of claims, constituted a favorable termination for purposes of malicious prosecution.
2. Whether Roche made a prima facie showing that Ram’s Gate lacked probable cause to bring or maintain the underlying action because information in the possession of its transactional counsel was imputable to Ram’s Gate.
3. Whether the interim adverse judgment rule barred Roche’s malicious prosecution claim despite the underlying court’s summary adjudication ruling finding triable issues on some claims.
4. Whether egregious discovery misconduct could support the fraud-or-perjury exception to the interim adverse judgment rule.
5. Whether the ordinary anti-SLAPP appellate-review rule requiring inferences in favor of the nonmoving party applies when evaluating the probable-cause element of a malicious prosecution claim.

Disposition

affirmed