Crittendon v. MULDROW

Background

Ajeenah Crittendon and EZ E-File Tax Preparers, Inc. sued Angelica Muldrow under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Their Second Amended Complaint asserted two California-law claims: defamation and libel based on comments Muldrow allegedly posted online, and a claim that Muldrow intentionally made false police reports.

The dispute followed an earlier federal case in Georgia in which Muldrow sued Crittendon and EZ over two allegedly fraudulent Form 1099-MISC tax forms. Crittendon answered that the forms were issued because Muldrow had caused damages through defamation, harassment, and fraud. The Georgia court entered a preliminary injunction, entered judgment against Crittendon, awarded Muldrow $5,000 in damages, and later denied Crittendon’s request to set aside or vacate the judgment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Motion to Dismiss

Muldrow moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), principally arguing that the claims were barred by res judicata. Res judicata is a rule that prevents a party from bringing a later case based on claims that were already decided, or that should have been brought, in an earlier case.

Because the earlier case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied Georgia’s rules concerning the preclusive effect of that judgment. The court found that the parties in the two cases were identical and that Crittendon’s claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the Georgia case. The court also concluded that the claims were compulsory counterclaims—claims that had to be brought in response to the earlier lawsuit.

The court rejected Crittendon’s argument that the earlier case had not decided the claims on their merits because no evidence was presented about the truth of Muldrow’s statements and Crittendon did not attend the hearing. Under the applicable Georgia standard, an adjudication on the merits did not require a full determination of the issues in an abstract or moral sense; it was enough that the case could have been decided on the merits if properly presented and managed. The court also rejected the argument that Crittendon’s pro se status allowed her to bring the claims again in another federal court. It held that the action was barred by res judicata.

Attorney-Fee Motion

The plaintiffs sought attorney fees under California’s anti-SLAPP statute for responding to Muldrow’s earlier anti-SLAPP motion. That motion had been denied after the court found that Muldrow had made a preliminary showing involving protected speech, while the plaintiffs had shown some probability of success on the merits.

The court denied the fee motion. It explained that denying an anti-SLAPP motion did not make the motion frivolous, that the motion raised some valid points, and that Muldrow was proceeding without a lawyer.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

Muldrow moved under Rule 12(f) to strike portions of a declaration attached to the plaintiffs’ reply in support of their fee motion. The court denied that motion because Rule 12(f) applies to material in a pleading, and the declaration was not a pleading under the Federal Rules. The court also stated that striking the declaration would not determine whether the statements were true.

The court granted Muldrow’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, and denied Muldrow’s motion to strike. The court stated that a separate judgment would enter and that the case would be closed. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order as Chief United States District Judge.