Gettel v. Glock-Grueneich CA6

Filed 12/24/24 Gettel v. Glock-Grueneich CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STEPHEN GETTEL, H050569 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21CV01912)

v.

RAYMOND C. GLOCK-GRUENEICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Stephen Gettel sued his former attorney, Kathleen Wells, and her paralegal, Raymond C. Glock-Grueneich, for breach of contract, professional negligence and negligence. Glock-Grueneich appeals an order denying his special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). For the reasons explained here, we will affirm the order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The following factual summary is taken from the complaint and the parties’ supporting declarations and documents. Gettel hired Wells to represent him in a contract dispute brought by John M. Saich and Nichole L. Saich in Santa Clara County Superior Court. In lieu of answering the Saiches’ complaint, Gettel moved to quash service of process. Gettel applied to remove the motion to quash from the trial court’s law and motion calendar on the ground that additional discovery was required. The trial court granted Gettel’s application. Gettel then moved to issue a non-statutory subpoena, which the trial

court denied for lack of jurisdiction, finding Gettel had abandoned the motion to quash by taking it off calendar. After Gettel failed to answer the complaint, the Saiches obtained a default judgment. While the Santa Clara County lawsuit was pending, Gettel initiated two separate actions in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against the Saiches for abuse of process and against their attorney for conspiracy to commit abuse of process. Gettel alleged the Saiches maliciously brought their action in the wrong venue to obtain a “home court” advantage for their Santa Clara County attorney and to force Wells, Gettel’s attorney based in Santa Cruz, to travel to court in Santa Clara County. In response, the Saiches and their attorney filed successful anti-SLAPP motions, which this Court affirmed. (Gettel v. Paetkau, Sept. 10, 2021, H047552, H047553) [nonpub. opn.].) Gettel then commenced this action against Wells and Glock-Grueneich in Santa Cruz County, alleging breach of contract, professional negligence, and negligence. As relevant to this appeal, the complaint alleged Glock-Grueneich is a disbarred attorney who improperly litigated Gettel’s cases under the pretense of being Wells’s paralegal, Wells merely “ ‘rubber stamped’ ” Glock-Grueneich’s legal work without actually supervising him, and Wells never informed Gettel that Glock-Grueneich had been disbarred. The complaint also alleged that Wells and Glock-Grueneich committed malpractice in the Saiches’ Santa Clara County lawsuit by failing to answer the complaint, resulting in a default judgment; by failing to move to set aside the default; by refusing to cooperate with Gettel’s substitute counsel in seeking to set aside the default; by making and then effectively abandoning the motion to quash service of process (without informing Gettel that denial of the motion would subject Gettel to an attorney fees award); by failing to comply with discovery requests (resulting in imposition of sanctions against Gettel); and by failing to file a cross-complaint as Gettel had requested. Wells and Glock-Grueneich moved to strike eight allegations in the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (known as the anti-SLAPP statute, 2