Landis’ Labyrinth, Inc. v. Whitaker et al.

Landis’ Labyrinth · California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three · December 3, 2025 · No. B339581

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered an appeal from summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action arising from a prior Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit. The court held that factual findings in the underlying action were entitled to issue-preclusive effect against the plaintiff in that action, Brian Whitaker, and were sufficient to establish lack of probable cause and malice. The court reversed summary judgment as to Whitaker but affirmed it as to his attorneys and their law firm.

Holdings

  1. Issue preclusion applies to Judge Shaller’s findings that Whitaker entered the store solely to look for ADA violations and did nothing else while inside. The findings were finally adjudicated, actually litigated, necessarily decided, and involved identical parties and issues.
  2. The prior findings did not conclusively resolve the legal issue of probable cause because Judge Shaller did not decide whether Whitaker had probable cause to pursue the Unruh Act claim. They nevertheless created triable issues on that issue.
  3. The prior findings and related evidence created a triable issue as to whether Whitaker acted with malice in pursuing the Unruh Act claim.
  4. Landis failed to raise a triable issue that Handy and Potter Handy, LLP lacked probable cause to pursue the Unruh Act claim, so summary judgment for the Attorneys was proper.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether issue preclusion applied to Judge Shaller’s factual findings from the underlying Unruh Act action.
  2. Whether those findings created triable issues as to whether Whitaker lacked probable cause to pursue the Unruh Act claim.
  3. Whether the findings and related evidence created triable issues as to whether Whitaker acted with malice.
  4. Whether Landis presented sufficient evidence that Handy and Potter Handy, LLP lacked probable cause to pursue the Unruh Act claim.
  5. Whether summary judgment was properly granted in the malicious prosecution action.

Disposition

reversed_in_part

Cases Cited (22)

  • Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031(distinguished)
  • Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 828(followed)
  • Key v. Tyler (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 534-539(followed)
  • DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824-825(followed)
  • Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 342-343(followed)
  • Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850(followed)
  • Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2000) 25 Cal.4th 763, 767-768(followed)
  • Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334(followed)
  • Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476(followed)
  • Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 292(followed)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…