Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV18778, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18778    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 39

Philip A. Lewis v. New Mount Pleasant Missionary Baptist Church

Case No. 23STCV18778

Special Motion to Dismiss Cross-Complaint

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Philip A. Lewis (“Plaintiff”), a minister, filed this action against his employer, New Mount Pleasant Missionary Baptist Church (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for breach of an employment agreement.  The Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer to this cause of action, finding that the claim is not precluded by the “ministerial exception” to the state’s employment laws.  Specifically, the Court found as follows:

“Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated him without following the proper procedures in the contract and bylaws.  (First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 8, 11.)  The first amended complaint is not predicated upon any alleged issues with Plaintiff’s performance or qualifications.  Therefore, the only inquiry is whether Defendant followed an objective set of procedural requirements, which does not implicate religious matters.  For this reason, the demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled.”

(Court’s Minute Order, dated December 6, 2023, p. 3.)  Following this ruling, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.  (See Defendant’s Cross-Complaint, filed on January 4, 2024.)  Defendant asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract, alleging that Plaintiff breached the agreement by failing to perform his administrative duties.  Now, Plaintiff moves to dismiss this cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.  The motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

In ruling on a defendant's special motion to strike, the trial court uses a two-step process. First, the defendant must show that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken in furtherance of the defendant's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitutions in connection with a public issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) If the defendant carries that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(3).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the cross-complaint is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion because it was filed in response to Plaintiff’s complaint for breach of contract.  Plaintiff’s counsel is incorrect.  A claim is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion only if the conduct constituting the protected activity “itself is the wrong complained of.”  (Park v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1060, emphasis deleted.)  Defendant’s claim is not predicated upon Plaintiff having filed the lawsuit; the claim is predicated upon the alleged breach of contract in Plaintiff failing to perform administrative duties.  Moreover, if the Court adopted Plaintiff’s argument, it would effectively hold that no defendant could file a compulsory cross-complaint.  Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the contract; Defendant now alleges that Plaintiff breached the same contract.  Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong of section 425.16. 

            Defendant seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,400.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1), the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees, as this motion was frivolous.  The Court must award fees to Defendant.  (Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1388.)       

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court denies Plaintiff’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

            2.         The Court orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,400, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days.

            3.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.