Mendoza v. Hamzeh
California Court of Appeal
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832 (2013)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Miguel Mendoza (plaintiff) was employed as the manager of a print and copy business owned by Guy Chow. Chow and Mendoza were engaged in a dispute over Mendoza’s management of the business. Reed Hamzeh (defendant), Chow’s attorney, sent Mendoza a demand letter stating that he had uncovered fraud and conversion and if Mendoza did not repay the damages Chow would sue Mendoza and report Mendoza to law-enforcement authorities, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Better Business Bureau, and customers and vendors. Mendoza sued Hamzeh for civil extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices. Mendoza claimed that Hamzeh’s threats to report Mendoza to law-enforcement authorities and the IRS constituted extortion. Hamzeh filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the demand letter constituted a protected litigation communication and Mendoza’s claims were barred by the litigation and common-interest privileges. Concluding that the demand letter was not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, the court denied Hamzeh’s anti-SLAPP motion and awarded Mendoza legal fees.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chaney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
