Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Malin v. Singer

Malin v. Singer

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four

July 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

B237804

Opinion

 [**295]  SUZUKAWA, J.—Defendants appealed from an order denying their special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.1 The trial court denied the motion under the first step of the statutory analysis on the ground that the claims did not arise from protected speech or petitioning activities. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Malin2 and Lonnie Moore3 own The Dolce  [***2] Group, a consortium of restaurants and nightclubs that includes the Geisha House  [*1288]  restaurant. Malin, Moore, and defendant Shereene Arazm are general partners of Geisha House, LLC (company).

In 2011, Arazm consulted her attorney, defendant Martin D. Singer, regarding Malin and Moore's alleged misappropriation of company assets. On Arazm's behalf, Singer sent Malin a demand letter and draft of Arazm's proposed complaint. The demand letter contained what Malin contends was an extortionate threat to disclose certain personal information if he did not pay to settle Arazm's claims. In the disputed portion of the letter, Singer stated that Malin had misused company resources to arrange sexual liaisons with older men, including “Judge [first and last name omitted], a/k/a ‘Dad’ (see enclosed photo).” (We have omitted the judge's name because the demand letter was filed under seal to protect the judge's privacy.) In order to place the allegedly extortionate threat in its proper context, we have quoted the letter below and italicized  [***3] the disputed language:

“I am litigation counsel to Shereene Arazm. I am writing to you with respect to your outrageous, malicious, wrongful and tortious conduct. As a result of your embezzlement, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, you have misappropriated more than a million dollars from my client. As a result thereof, my client intends to file the enclosed lawsuit against you, Lonnie Moore, and various business entities that you and Mr. Moore control. As alleged in the Complaint, you, Mr. Moore and several of your co-conspirators have been embezzling and stealing money from Ms. Arazm and Geisha House, LLC for years. As set forth in detail in the Complaint, you and Mr. Moore have devised various schemes to embezzle money from the restaurants and clubs which you own and/or manage, including, but not limited to Geisha House and WonderLand. You and Mr. Moore have created a special account or ‘ledger,’ which allows you to keep tabs on how the stolen funds are divided among you, Mr. Moore and your various co-conspirators. My client intends, as part of the lawsuit, to seek a full-fledged forensic accounting of the books and records for Geisha House, LLC, 2HYPE Productions, Inc., LTM  [***4] Consulting, Inc., and Malin & Moore Enterprises, LLC, in addition to your personal accounts.

“In addition, as set forth in the Complaint, we have information that you and Mr. Moore have engaged in insurance scams designed to defraud not only the insurers of your establishments, but also the insurers of WonderLand. You have also taken steps to hide your assets from creditors as well as from the taxing authorities. We are aware that you have converted my client's monies and deposited them in accounts in the Cook Islands. We have also confirmed that you have planned to illegally transfer your shares in Geisha House Los Angeles to Sylvain Bitton in a further attempt to hide from creditors and avoid tax liability.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

217 Cal. App. 4th 1283 *; 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 292 **; 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 556 ***; 2013 WL 3717056

MICHAEL MALIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN D. SINGER et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Subsequent History: Application granted by Malin v. Singer, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 9988 (Cal., Oct. 1, 2013)

Review denied by Malin v. Singer, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 8650 (Cal., Oct. 23, 2013)

Prior History:  [***1] APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC466547, Mary Strobel, Judge.

Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CORE TERMS

extortion, demand letter, anti-SLAPP, cause of action, allegations, matter of law, wiretapping, prevailing, special motion, trial court, hacking, lawsuit, litigation privilege, costs, protected activity, threats, attorney's fees, accuse, expose, subject to dismissal, sexual, petitioning activity, good faith, probability, disgrace, rights, secret, criminal activity, sexual misconduct, motion to strike

Constitutional Law, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Criminal Law & Procedure, Racketeering, Extortion, General Overview, Elements, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Affirmative Defenses, Governments, Courts, Remedies, Costs & Attorney Fees, Attorney Fees & Expenses, Basis of Recovery, Statutory Awards