Du Bois v. Boskovich

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 7, 2023
• Docket: 4:21-cv-03224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BEKAH DU BOIS, Case No. 21-cv-03224-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE, GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS, AND TERMINATING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS 10 ANTHONY BOSKOVICH, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 40, 41 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion to strike and motions to dismiss. Dkt. 14 Nos. 27, 40, 41. The Court finds these matters appropriate for disposition without oral argument 15 and the matters are deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the 16 Court GRANTS the motion to strike, TERMINATES AS MOOT Anthony Boskovich’s motion 17 to dismiss, and GRANTS Gary Stratton’s motion to dismiss. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Pro Se Plaintiff Bekah Du Bois filed this action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation 20 against both her ex-husband, Defendant Gary Stratton, and her ex-husband’s attorney, Defendant 21 Anthony Boskovich. See Dkt. No. 20 (“SAC”). Plaintiff’s claims arise from an underlying 22 marital dissolution proceeding in April 2016, in which Mr. Boskovich represented Mr. Stratton. 23 Id. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and Mr. Stratton entered into an agreement to waive 24 spousal support as part of this proceeding. See id. at ¶¶ 8–11. As part of this agreement, Plaintiff 25 also agreed to extend the limitations period to try a concurrent malicious prosecution matter 26 involving the same parties. See id. at ¶ 10. The waiver of spousal support was filed in family 27 court in July 2016. See id. at ¶ 11. 1 Stratton had remarried months before in October 2015. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 12. Plaintiff also contends that 2 Defendants misstated the nature of Mr. Stratton’s finances. See id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff urges that 3 Defendants had a fiduciary duty to tell her this information, and she would not have agreed to 4 waive spousal support had she known the truth. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 18–21, 27. Plaintiff also suggests 5 that Mr. Stratton could not legally waive spousal support because he had remarried. See id. at 6 ¶¶ 12, 20. Plaintiff alleges that in May 2017 she discovered that Mr. Stratton had remarried back 7 in 2015. Id. She also asserts that her own attorney, Elainie Honjas, testified during a deposition in 8 May 2020 that Mr. Boskovich knew Mr. Stratton had remarried prior to executing the waiver of 9 spousal support. See id. at ¶ 13. 10 In response to the SAC, Mr. Boskovich filed a motion to strike and both Defendants filed 11 motions to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 27, 40, 41. 12 II. MOTION TO STRIKE 13 A. Legal Standard 14 Under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, “[a] cause of action against a person arising from 15 any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the 16 United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a 17 special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a 18 probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 425.16(b)(1). The 19 statute was enacted to curtail “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” that were “brought 20 primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition 21 for redress of grievances.” Id. § 425.16(a). Because “it is in the public interest to encourage 22 continued participation in matters of public significance, and [because] this participation should 23 not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process,” the anti-SLAPP statute is to be construed 24 broadly. Id. 25 California courts apply a two-step process for analyzing an anti-SLAPP motion. Hilton v. 26 Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 903 (9th Cir. 2010). Under the first prong, the moving party must 27 make “a threshold showing . . . that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken ‘in 1 Constitution in connection with a public issue,’ as defined in the statute.” Equilon Enters., LLC v. 2 Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67 (Cal. 2002) (quoting Cal. Civ. P. Code § 425.16(b)(1)). 3 If the moving party meets its threshold showing, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to 4 prove a probability of prevailing on the claim. See id. 5 B. Discussion 6 As noted above, to be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, the cause of action must arise 7 from an act “in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States 8 Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. P. Code 9 § 425.16(b). Subdivision (e) delineates the four types of acts that constitute a protected “act in 10 furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech.” Id. at § 425.16(e). These include, as 11 relevant here, “(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a . . . judicial proceeding,” 12 and “(2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under 13 consideration or review by a . . . judicial body.” Id. at § 425(e)(1), (2). The statute “shall be 14 construed broadly” to safeguard “the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of 15 speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” Id. at § 425.16(a). 16 i. Arising from Protected Activity 17 For purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute, a cause of action “arises from” conduct that it is 18 “based on.” See Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1237, 19 1244–45 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). Plaintiff brings causes of action against Mr. Boskovich for 20 (1) intentional misrepresentation and nondisclosure; and (2) negligent misrepresentation and 21 nondisclosure. See SAC at ¶¶ 17–33. Mr. Boskovich states that these causes of action all arise 22 from his representation of Mr. Stratton in the underlying marital dissolution proceeding and are 23 thus protected. See Dkt. No. 40 at 6–7. 24 Courts routinely hold that the anti-SLAPP statute “protects lawyers sued for litigation- 25 related speech and activity.” See Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, 207 Cal. App. 4th 141, 26 154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012), as modified (June 22, 2012) (collecting cases). “Recognized petitioning 27 activities [] include not only the conduct of litigation but also acts and communications reasonably 1 The California Court of Appeal has thus explained that “all communicative acts performed by 2 attorneys as part of their representation of a client in a judicial proceeding or other petitioning 3 context are per se protected as petitioning activity by the anti-SLAPP statute.” Cabral v. Martins, 4 177 Cal. App. 4th 471, 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (collecting cases). 5 Here, the complaint itself alleges that Mr. Boskovich’s alleged misconduct occurred as part 6 of the family court case, Stratton v. Stratton Family Case, Case No. 6-09-FL-002093. See SAC at 7 ¶¶ 8–11, 33. Mr. Boskovich assisted Mr. Stratton in negotiating the agreement to waive spousal 8 support, which was filed in the family court. See id. at ¶ 11. The complaint also indicates that Mr. 9 Boskovich was “the Attorney of record for Stratton” for these proceedings. See id. at ¶¶ 18–19. 10 Mr. Boskovich urges that Plaintiff’s causes of action thus clearly arise from his written and oral 11 statements “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by . . . a judicial 12 body.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 425.16(e)(2); see also Bleavins v. Demarest, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1533, 13 1541–42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding that challenge to opposing counsel’s “approach to 14 litigation” was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute). 15 In response, Plaintiff suggests that the anti-SLAPP statute should not apply because she is 16 suing Defendants for their omissions rather than their affirmative speech. See Dkt. No. 51 at 1–2. 17 But as an initial matter, Plaintiff’s allegations are not purely about Mr. Boskovich’s omissions. 18 Plaintiff alleges, for example, that Mr. Boskovich “often told Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney 19 Elainie Honjas that Mr. Stratton was not employed and had no income,” which she states “was not 20 true.” See SAC at ¶ 8; see also id at ¶¶ 17–33 (asserting causes of action for intentional and 21 negligent misrepresentation). Because both Plaintiff’s causes of action are based, at least in part 22 on these affirmative misrepresentations about Mr. Stratton’s financial circumstances, the anti- 23 SLAPP statute applies. See Bonni, 11 Cal. 5th at 1009–12 (“It does not matter that other 24 unprotected acts may also have been alleged within what has been labeled a single cause of action; 25 these are disregarded at this stage.” (quotation omitted)). 26 In any event, the anti-SLAPP statute is not strictly limited to affirmative 27 misrepresentations. As the California Court of Appeal has explained, the free speech right that the 1 speaker chooses not to say; it is a right to speak freely and also a right to refrain from doing so at 2 all.” Suarez v. Trigg Lab’ys, Inc., 3 Cal. App. 5th 118, 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). The Ninth 3 Circuit’s opinion in Graham-Sult v. Clainos is instructive. 756 F.3d 724, 739–40 (9th Cir. 2014). 4 Much like the allegations here, in Graham-Sult, the plaintiffs alleged that the trustee of an estate 5 and his attorney failed to disclose information about the intellectual property assets of the estate 6 while a probate court was considering how the estate’s assets should be distributed. Id. The Court 7 held that the fraud and concealment claims still arose from protected activity for purposes of the 8 anti-SLAPP statute. Id. The Ninth Circuit held that “it ma[de] no difference that Plaintiffs 9 include[d] allegations of omissions, rather than only affirmative misrepresentations” because such 10 claims still arose from protected activity. Id.; cf. Bonni, 11 Cal. 5th at 1025 (noting that alleging 11 fraud during the course of settlement negotiations “does not remove [the negotiations] from the 12 definition of protected activity”); Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal. 4th 82, 90 (Cal. 2002) (finding 13 alleged “acts (or omissions) . . . fall[] squarely within the plain language of the anti-SLAPP 14 statute”). 15 Here too, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Boskovich arise from protected 16 activity because they are based on his negotiations of the waiver of spousal support as counsel for 17 Mr. Stratton in the family court case. To the extent Plaintiff suggests that the anti-SLAPP statute 18 somehow insulates Defendants from the consequences of their wrongful conduct, See Dkt. No. 51 19 at 6, Plaintiff misunderstands the statute. “[T]he statute does not bar a plaintiff from litigating an 20 action that arises out of the defendant’s free speech or petitioning,” but rather “subjects to 21 potential dismissal only those actions in which the plaintiff cannot state[] and substantiate[] a 22 legally sufficient claim” Navellier, 29 Cal. 4th at 93 (quotation omitted). The Court therefore 23 considers Plaintiff’s likelihood of success as to her causes of action against Mr. Boskovich. 24 ii. Reasonable Probability of Prevailing 25 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on her causes of action 26 against Mr. Boskovich. See Equilon, 29 Cal. 4th at 67. But she cannot do so here. Mr. Boskovich 27 contends that Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by California’s litigation privilege, Cal. Civ. 1 California’s litigation privilege applies to any communication “(1) made in judicial or 2 quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve 3 the objects of the litigation; and (4) that ha[s] some connection or logical relation to the action.” 4 Graham-Sult, 738 F.3d at 1147 (quotations omitted). The privilege is broad and “extends to 5 statements made outside of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1149. It “immunizes defendants from 6 virtually any tort liability (including claims for fraud), with the sole exception of causes of action 7 for malicious prosecution.” Id. at 1147 (quotations omitted). Much like the anti-SLAPP statute, 8 “[t]he litigation privilege also protects a defendant’s silence having some relation to a judicial 9 proceeding when the silence is communicative.” See Crossroads Invs., L.P. v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. 10 Ass’n, 13 Cal. App. 5th 757, 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). For example, “courts have held the 11 privilege applies when circumstances impose on the defendant a duty to speak and the defendant 12 remains silent, thereby communicating that the circumstances do not exist.” Id. 13 Silberg v. Anderson is instructive on this point. In that case, the plaintiff sued the attorney 14 who had represented his ex-wife in their marital dissolution proceeding. 50 Cal. 3d 205, 210 (Cal. 15 1990), as modified (Mar. 12, 1990) (en banc). As part of these proceedings, the parties had 16 stipulated to the appointment of a psychologist as an independent expert on visitation and custody 17 arrangements. Id. The attorney recommended a psychologist, and said he was neutral. Id. But 18 the plaintiff alleged that the attorney failed to disclose that she had a preexisting relationship with 19 the psychologist, which led to a biased report. Id. at 210–11. The California Supreme Court held 20 that the litigation privilege “plainly” applied to the attorney’s statements and omission because 21 they “were made in the context of a judicial proceeding, were logically related to the action, 22 played an integral role in the proceeding, and were made by one of the participants about an 23 authorized participant.” Id. at 219–20; accord Kuehn v. Kuehn, 85 Cal. App. 4th 824, 834 (Cal. 24 Ct. App. 2000) (applying § 47(b) to fraud claim against attorney for concealment of community 25 assets in marriage dissolution action). 26 As discussed above, the allegations against Mr. Boskovich are all related to the 27 negotiations regarding the waiver of spousal support in the underlying marital dissolution 1 § 47(b) to apply: (1) they were made in the context of a judicial proceeding (the marital 2 dissolution action); (2) they were made by an authorized participant (Mr. Stratton’s attorney of 3 record); (3) they furthered the objects of the litigation (to resolve issues of spousal support relating 4 to the marriage dissolution); and (4) they were logically related to the action (again, by addressing 5 the scope of any spousal support in the underlying action). 6 In response, Plaintiff suggests that Mr. Boskovich failed to meet his ethical obligations of 7 candor. See Dkt. No. 51 at 3–4, 6–7. Plaintiff cites California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2.1, 8 which states that “[a] lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client in conduct that 9 the lawyer knows is . . . fraudulent.” Id. But as Mr. Boskovich points out, a violation of a Rule of 10 Professional Conduct does not itself give rise to a cause of action: 11 A violation of a rule does not itself give rise to a cause of action for 12 damages caused by failure to comply with the rule. Nothing in these rules or the Comments to the rules is intended to enlarge or to restrict 13 the law regarding the liability of lawyers to others. 14 15 See Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 1.0(b)(3). 16 Plaintiff’s causes of action are also barred by the statute of limitations. Under California 17 Civil Procedure Code § 340.6: 18 An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other 19 than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff 20 discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four 21 years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first. 22 23 Cal. Civ. P. Code § 340.6(a). The limitations period for a cause of action for actual fraud is three 24 years. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 338. The limitations period, however, does not begin to run “until 25 the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” See Fox v. Ethicon Endo- 26 Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 807 (Cal. 2005). 27 Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that she learned of Mr. Stratton’s marital status on May 1 married on 10/17/2015.”). Under § 340.6, she therefore had to bring her negligent 2 misrepresentation and nondisclosure claim a year later, or by May 17, 2018. But she did not file 3 this action until April 30, 2021. See Dkt. No. 1. 4 As to Plaintiff’s fraud-based claim for intentional misrepresentation and nondisclosure, she 5 ordinarily would have had three years from May 17, 2017, or until May 17, 2020, to bring her 6 claim. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Judicial Council (“JCC”) 7 temporarily tolled the statute of limitations. The JCC’s Emergency Rule 9 provides: 8 “Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action 9 that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020.”1 As of April 6, 2020, 10 there were 41 days remaining on the three-year statute of limitations.2 Therefore when the JCC’s 11 emergency order ended on October 1, 2020, Plaintiff had 41 more days to file her action—or until 12 November 11, 2020. But again, Plaintiff did not file this action until months later on April 30, 13 2021. Dkt. No. 1. Therefore, even with tolling due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff’s causes 14 of action are time-barred. 15 Plaintiff states in opposition that her claims are nevertheless timely because during a 16 deposition in May 2021, her attorney Ms. Hojas acknowledged that Mr. Boskovich knew Mr. 17 Stratton was married prior to signing the waiver of spousal support. See Dkt. No. 51 at 4. To the 18 extent Plaintiff suggests that she did not discover until May 2021 that Mr. Stratton had remarried, 19 this is contradicted by her own allegations in the complaint. See SAC at ¶ 12. Accordingly, the 20 Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is a probability of prevailing on her 21 causes of action against Mr. Boskovich. 22 * * * 23 The Court therefore GRANTS Mr. Boskovich’s motion to strike, Dkt. No. 40, and 24 DISMISSES the causes of action against Mr. Boskovich with prejudice. The Court further 25

26 1 See Judicial Council of Cal., Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/appendix-i.pdf. 27 2 A three-year statute of limitations period contains 1,095 days. There are 1,054 days between 1 TERMINATES AS MOOT Mr. Boskovich’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 41. 2 III. MOTION TO DISMISS 3 A. Legal Standard 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 5 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 6 defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 7 granted under Rule 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the 8 complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” 9 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 10 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff need only plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 11 on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible 12 when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 13 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 14 In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts “accept factual allegations in the 15 complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 16 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, 17 courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 18 fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 19 2008) (quoting Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)). 20 B. Discussion 21 Mr. Stratton has also moved to dismiss the claims against him based, at least in part, on the 22 statute of limitations. Dkt. No. 27. Like Mr. Boskovich, Mr. Stratton argues that Plaintiff’s 23 claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations under California Civil Procedure Code 24 § 338. See id. at 6. Plaintiff again suggests that she “was not aware that Defendants conspired to 25 commit fraud” until May 1, 2020, when Ms. Honjas “stated under the penalty of perjury that . . . 26 Defendant Stratton was married before the Mutual Waiver of Spousal Support was agreed upon 27 and executed . . . .” See Dkt. No. 30 at 1–2. But as the Court explained in Section II.B.ii above, 1 complaint that she discovered that Mr. Stratton had remarried in May 2017. See SAC at □□ 12. The 2 || Court therefore GRANTS the motion to dismiss. 3 || Iv. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Boskovich’s motion to strike, Dkt. No. 40; 5 TERMINATES AS MOOT Mr. Boskovich’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 41; and GRANTS Mr. 6 Stratton’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 27. Based on the nature of the deficiencies in Plaintiff's 7 complaint, the Court finds that granting leave to amend would be futile, and therefore 8 DISMISSES the case without leave to amend. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 9 || 2003) (“Leave to amend should be granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 10 || allegation of other facts, and should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”) (quotations 11 omitted). The Clerk is therefore directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close the 12 case. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. |] Dated: 2/7/2023 Aauprerd 3 bl) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28