Maria Elena's Restaurant v. Boyes CA2/6

Filed 4/20/23 Maria Elena’s Restaurant v. Boyes CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

MARIA ELENA’S 2d Civ. No. B322667 RESTAURANT, INC., (Super. Ct. No. 19CV347686) (Santa Clara County) Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA BOYES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

In an underlying action, an injured party sued a restaurant for personal injuries, later adding the restaurant’s landlord and the landlord’s insurance carriers as defendants. The action was settled between the injured party and the restaurant by payment of cash to the injured party and an assignment of rights against the insurance carriers from the injured party to the restaurant. After the injured party was paid, his counsel requested dismissal

of the action. The dismissal terminated the rights assigned to the restaurant. The restaurant brought the instant action against the injured party and his counsel, alleging causes of action including breach of contract and fraud. The injured party’s counsel responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, requesting dismissal and attorney fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 The trial court granted the motion. We affirm. FACTS Underlying Action Orlando Paramo injured a tooth on an object at Maria Elena’s Restaurant (the Restaurant). Paramo sued the Restaurant. The Restaurant was not insured, so Paramo sued Restaurant’s landlord and the landlord’s insurance carriers. The insurance carriers took the position that Paramo had no standing to sue them because he was not a beneficiary of their policies. Paramo was represented by Patricia Boyes and Boyeslegal, APC (collectively Boyes). Paramo and the Restaurant entered into a settlement agreement. The Restaurant agreed to pay Paramo $21,000 in installments. Paramo assigned his right to collect $10,000 in medical costs from the landlord’s insurance carriers to the Restaurant. Paramo and Boyes knew that the Restaurant would not have accepted the settlement except for their promises to ensure that the Restaurant received medical payment. The Restaurant and the insurance carriers were engaged in meet and confer efforts regarding the $10,000 medical insurance payment. When Paramo received the last installment payment