Miletak v. Acuity Mutual Insurance Company

Background

Pro se plaintiff Nick Miletak sued Acuity Mutual Insurance Company for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with economic advantage. He alleged that Darcel Lang, an Acuity employee, falsely reported to Miletak’s employer that he had engaged in improper conduct related to an insurance claim made by Miletak’s goddaughter. Miletak alleged that the report humiliated him and caused him to resign from his employment.

After the defendants removed the case from state court, Lang brought a defamation cross-claim against Miletak. The court previously dismissed that cross-claim with leave to amend. In the amended answer, Lang asserted cross-claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Acuity asserted a cross-claim for malicious prosecution.

Miletak moved to dismiss all three amended cross-claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a pleading states a legally sufficient claim. He also moved to strike the claims under California’s anti-SLAPP law, a statute addressing claims based on protected speech or petitioning activity.

Motions to Dismiss

The court granted Miletak’s motion to dismiss Lang’s intentional-infliction and negligent-infliction cross-claims. Lang based both claims on Miletak’s statements and conduct in this lawsuit. The court held that communications made in or related to judicial proceedings were protected by California’s litigation privilege, which provides immunity from tort liability for qualifying communications. Because Lang had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not alleged statements outside that privilege, the court granted dismissal without leave to amend.

The court also granted Miletak’s motion to dismiss Acuity’s malicious-prosecution cross-claim. Under the test the court applied, a malicious-prosecution claim requires that the earlier proceeding have been pursued to a legal termination in the claimant’s favor. Because Miletak’s case remained active, Acuity could not satisfy that requirement at that time. The court dismissed the cross-claim without prejudice to Acuity filing a new lawsuit after this case concluded, if Acuity prevailed in defeating Miletak’s case.

Anti-SLAPP Motion

The court construed Miletak’s filing as seeking to strike all three cross-claims, even though the motion was not clearly directed to Acuity’s claim and incorrectly identified who brought the malicious-prosecution claim. The court did so because filings by self-represented litigants are read liberally.

The court applied California’s two-step anti-SLAPP analysis. At the first step, it found that the cross-claims were based on Miletak’s statements in the lawsuit, which constituted protected activity. At the second step, it found that Lang and Acuity had not shown that their claims were legally sufficient and supported by facts. The court therefore granted the motion to strike Acuity’s malicious-prosecution cross-claim and Lang’s emotional-distress cross-claims.

Attorney’s Fees and Disposition

The court considered attorney’s fees because California’s anti-SLAPP law ordinarily requires fees and costs when the motion succeeds. It did not award fees because Miletak represented himself.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Miletak’s motions to dismiss Lang’s amended intentional-infliction and negligent-infliction cross-claims were granted without leave to amend; his motion to dismiss Acuity’s malicious-prosecution cross-claim was granted without prejudice; his motion to strike all three cross-claims was granted; and attorney’s fees were not granted. The order addressed the cross-claims and did not resolve Miletak’s underlying claims against Acuity.