Jackson v. Katten Munchin Rosenman CA2/8

Filed 11/7/13 Jackson v. Katten Munchin Rosenman CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

CARLOS JACKSON, B241596

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC472822) v.

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James R. Dunn, Judge. Affirmed.

Carlos Jackson, in pro per, Appellant.

Katten Muchin Rosenman and Cory A. Baskin for Respondents.

__________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Carlos Jackson (Jackson) appeals from the April 13, 2012 order granting a Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (§ 425.16) special motion to strike his complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and awarding attorneys fees of $10,800 to defendants and respondents Katten Muchin Rosenmann, LLP, Joel Weiner, Gail Migdal and Gloria Franke (collectively the Katten defendants). Jackson’s sole contention is that it was error to deny him an opportunity to file an amended complaint. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2000, Jackson and Universal Pictures entered into a settlement agreement regarding Jackson’s claims that Universal took his screenplay, “Agent 008.” Pursuant to that agreement, Universal bought the screenplay and was prohibited from denying that it had done so; the agreement also required binding arbitration of all disputes relating to it. Over the next several years, Jackson sued Universal multiple times and Universal successfully compelled arbitration of each matter. In October 2009, Jackson filed case No. BC424529 against Universal, the gravamen of which was that Universal breached the settlement agreement on August 28, 2009, when its in-house counsel, Keith Blau, told a business associate of Jackson’s about the settlement agreement, disparaged Jackson’s writing career and accused Jackson of being a vexatious litigant. Universal, represented by the Katten defendants, filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. The motion was granted, and the litigation stayed (the March 2010 order). On May 10, 2010, the trial court denied Jackson’s request to “rescind” the March 2010 order. On May 10, 2010, Jackson filed an action against attorney Blau (case No. BC437269), which alleged the identical facts as alleged against Universal in case No. BC424529. The trial court denied without prejudice Blau’s motion to have Jackson declared a vexatious litigant. The separate law suits against Universal and Blau were deemed related. On December 3, 2010, Jackson filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the related cases to add as defendants Universal’s and Blau’s