Gardner v. Roeder CA6

Filed 8/27/15 Gardner v. Roeder CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALAN GARDNER, H038407 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV216725)

v.

JOHN WALTER ROEDER et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Alan Gardner brought this action against defendant John Walter Roeder alleging that Roeder had breached a settlement agreement by bringing a lawsuit based upon claims that, according to Gardner, Roeder had released. Roeder responded with an anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), which the trial court granted. Gardner contends that this was error because, even though Roeder was not a named releasor in the settlement agreement, one of the parties was acting as his alter ego. We find no error, and affirm. BACKGROUND According to the complaint, this is the fourth of four related lawsuits. The first two had their genesis in Gardner’s employment by Great Oaks Water Company (Great Oaks) as its Chief Operating Officer from November 2001 to September 2006. He alleges that respondent Roeder was Great Oaks’s “[O]wner, Chief Executive Officer . . .

and controlling shareholder,” as well as its “Chairman of the Board of Directors.” Upon Gardner’s separation from employment, he alleges, he filed suit against Great Oaks— apparently for employment discrimination—and Great Oaks countersued for “breach of confidential relationship, civil extortion, defamation and declaratory relief.” The parties settled these actions and executed the mutual release on which this lawsuit is based. The third suit was filed six weeks later, when Roeder sued Gardner on what are alleged to be “the identical causes of actions previously released between the parties.” (Italics and underlining omitted.) Based on this conduct, Gardner brought the present action (suit number four) against Roeder, charging him with breach of contract and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Roeder moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for Roeder. Gardner filed this timely appeal. DISCUSSION “The anti-SLAPP law authorizes a defendant to bring a ‘Special Motion to Strike’ any cause of action ‘arising from any act of [the defendant] in furtherance of [the defendant’s] right of petition or free speech . . . in connection with a public issue.’ (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)” (Old Republic Construction Program Group v. Boccardo Law Firm, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 859, 866, review denied, Feb. 11,2015.) The statute “mandates a two-step analysis. The first step is to determine whether the moving party has shown that the targeted cause of action arises from conduct protected by the statute. [Citation.] If the answer is yes, the court considers whether the plaintiff has established the requisite probability of success. [Citation.] As to both questions, a reviewing court applies its independent judgment, without deference to the trial court’s ruling. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)