Witt v. Ross

Background

Jeremy Witt’s first amended complaint challenged Patrick Ross and Ross’s attorney, Margaret Trask, over a cross-request for a temporary restraining order filed in state-court civil-harassment proceedings. Witt alleged that the request was false and retaliatory, was filed to harm him and pressure him to dismiss his case, and contributed to his loss of employment.

The complaint asserted three California-law claims: malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. The defendants filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute and alternatively moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Anti-SLAPP analysis

California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides an early procedure for striking claims arising from protected petitioning or speech activity unless the plaintiff shows at least minimal merit. The court applied the statute’s two-step test.

First, the court held that each claim arose from the defendants’ filing and litigation of the cross-request for a temporary restraining order. The court determined that filing the request was a written communication connected to a judicial proceeding and therefore protected activity under the statute.

Witt argued that the filing was not protected because the state-court litigation was a sham. The court rejected that argument. It also rejected reliance on the narrow exception for conduct that is illegal as a matter of law, explaining that the record contained no evidence establishing criminal conduct and that Witt’s conclusory allegations were insufficient.

Second, the court held that Witt had not shown a probability of prevailing. It concluded that California law barred a malicious-prosecution claim based on the unsuccessful filing of a petition for an injunction under California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. The court also concluded that the litigation privilege barred the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and abuse-of-process claims because the claims were based on the filing of a legal action in judicial proceedings.

The court further noted that Witt relied on the allegations in his complaint rather than submitting admissible evidence supporting his claims. His offer to submit a declaration later was untimely and would not have affected the merits of the claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ special motion to strike. It dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Witt may file a second amended complaint within 14 days of the order, but any amendment must be limited to curing the defects identified by the court; no new claims or parties may be added without the court’s permission.