News & Events
Supreme Court Ruling Secures Appellate Victory for Gladstone Michel Clients Accused of Malicious Prosecution
The California Supreme Court has let stand an appellate decision in favor of Gladstone Michel’s clients, a well-known Century City lawyer and his law firm, in a malicious prosecution action. The ruling clears the way to the recovery of substantial attorneys fees from the plaintiff.
In Landau v Rockefeller (2d Civil No B211392, LASC Case No. BC 389879), the Court of Appeal had affirmed in December of 2009 a ruling by the trial court striking the complaint on multiple grounds, including that the applicable law for a malicious prosecution case arising out of litigation in a different state is the law of that state, not the law of California. Landau petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, but the petition was denied last week without comment by the Court.
Gladstone Michel managing partner Allen Michel represented the Century-City-based lawyers in the trial court and on appeal. He argued in an antiSLAPP motion under CCP section 425.16 and in appellate briefs that the malicious prosecution plaintiff, who had been sued unsuccessfully in the State of Washington, had no valid cause of action against his clients.
Michel’s clients had been admitted to practice in the State of Washington for the limited purpose of litigating the underlying case on behalf of their client, attorney and investor Nicholas Rockefeller, who claimed that Landau had taped telephone conversations without consent and was trying to use those tapes to gain an advantage in a separate matter. They had worked with co-counsel based in Seattle.
Michel argued that as counsel appearing specially (“pro hac vice”) in Washington, his clients were already subject to oversight by the courts in Washington, that they had done nothing actionable under that state’s laws, and that efforts to assess sanctions against them in Washington had already been rejected by the Washington courts.
Washington jurisprudence does not favor malicious prosecution cases; the courts there place special requirements on plaintiffs seeking damages against their adversary’s counsel. Landau conceded he could not succeed if Washington law applied, but argued in opposition to Michel’s antiSLAPP motion that California’s malicious prosecution doctrines should be used, rather than Washington’s, because California has an interest in controlling lawyers licensed in this state. Landau also argued unsuccessfully that the underlying case was really a ploy to pressure him to settle a different matter that was pending in California.
Michel’s clients have already received a judgment against Landau under CCP section 425.16 based on fees incurred prior to the appeal. A motion to increase the amount of the judgment to include fees and costs incurred on appeal is in the works.
About Gladstone Michel
Gladstone Michel provides the highest quality litigation, business, insurance and entertainment services to clients throughout the country. The firm’s attorneys have more than three decades of experience defending lawyers and law firms, accountants, insurance brokers and agents, and other professionals accused of malpractice. malicious prosecution, negligence, disciplinary violations, conflicts of interest, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and other tort claims. For more information, please contact Allen Michel at amichel@gladstonemichel.com or at (310) 821-9000.