Mohazzabi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Behrooz Mohazzabi alleged that an unauthorized $20,000 withdrawal was made from his Wells Fargo account in 2016. Wells Fargo investigated and denied reimbursement, stating that Mohazzabi’s driver’s license was used, the transaction was validated by a personal identification number, and branch video showed Mohazzabi making the withdrawal. Mohazzabi later pursued arbitration against Wells Fargo, which ended in Wells Fargo’s favor in July 2020.

After the arbitration, Wells Fargo obtained a workplace-violence restraining order against Mohazzabi on behalf of its employee, Lorena Barba. Mohazzabi alleged that the restraining-order proceeding involved perjury, false documents, and fabricated evidence. He filed this lawsuit against Wells Fargo, seeking punitive damages and $180,000 in compensation for alleged malice, oppression, harassment, elder abuse, and false documents. He also moved to disqualify Wells Fargo’s counsel, Severson & Werson, and attorneys Benjamin Howard and Mark Wraight.

Judicial Notice

Wells Fargo asked the court to take judicial notice of 15 documents from court and arbitration proceedings. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts or records without requiring ordinary proof when they are not reasonably disputed. The court granted Wells Fargo’s requests because the documents arose in court or arbitration proceedings and were not subject to reasonable dispute.

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Mohazzabi argued that Howard and Wraight violated their duties of candor by making false statements. As to Howard, the court found that Mohazzabi had not identified any false statement of fact or law that could support disqualification. As to Wraight, Mohazzabi relied on a call log that he said contradicted Wraight’s declaration about multiple harassing calls. The court concluded that the call log did not establish that the declaration was false or that Wraight knowingly submitted a false statement. The court therefore denied Mohazzabi’s motion to disqualify Severson & Werson, Wraight, and Howard.

Anti-SLAPP Motion

California’s anti-SLAPP law provides a procedure for striking claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity, including statements made in or connected with judicial proceedings. The court held that Mohazzabi’s claims concerning statements made during the workplace-violence restraining-order proceeding fell within that law.

The court read the complaint as asserting fraud in the arbitration proceeding, fraud in the restraining-order proceeding, and malicious prosecution. The arbitration fraud claim was not subject to the anti-SLAPP law because arbitration is not a judicial proceeding under that statute. The restraining-order fraud and malicious-prosecution claims were subject to the statute because they arose from statements made during litigation.

The court held that Mohazzabi could not show a reasonable probability of prevailing on those claims. His malicious-prosecution claim failed because the restraining-order proceeding ended against him, rather than in his favor. His fraud claim was an attempt to challenge the restraining-order proceeding based on alleged fraud that he had an opportunity to raise in that proceeding. The court therefore held that the malicious-prosecution and restraining-order fraud claims were barred by California’s anti-SLAPP law and struck them.

Motion to Dismiss

The remaining claim concerned alleged fraud during the arbitration. The court held that California’s litigation privilege generally protects statements made during litigation from tort liability and extends to private arbitration proceedings that function like court proceedings. Because the claim relied on Barba’s declaration during the arbitration, Wells Fargo was immune from tort liability based on that statement.

The court also held that, to the extent Mohazzabi was attempting to use fraud to attack the arbitration’s outcome, the argument was not valid because he had notice of the arbitration and had an opportunity to present his fraud arguments there. The court dismissed the arbitration fraud claim with prejudice.

Fees and Final Disposition

A party that successfully brings an anti-SLAPP motion may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The court found that Wells Fargo’s requested fees and costs for the anti-SLAPP motion and related motion to dismiss were reasonable. It directed Mohazzabi to pay $11,069.20 to Wells Fargo’s counsel by March 31, 2022. The court granted Wells Fargo’s anti-SLAPP motion and motion to dismiss, denied Mohazzabi’s motion for disqualification, struck the malicious-prosecution and restraining-order fraud claims, dismissed the arbitration fraud claims with prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the file.