IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CURTIS OLSON, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. JANE DOE, Cross-defendant and Respondent. S258498 Second Appellate District, Division Eight B286105 Los Angeles County Superior Court SC126806 January 13, 2022 Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Moor* concurred. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. OLSON v. DOE S258498 Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 provides a specialized procedure for a petitioner who has suffered harassment within the meaning of the statute to expeditiously seek a limited judicial remedy — injunctive relief to prevent threatened future harm. (All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) A petitioner who also desires retrospective relief in connection with the same underlying conduct, such as tort damages, must do so separately. Cross-defendant Jane Doe and cross-complainant Curtis Olson each own units in the same condominium building. Doe sought a civil harassment restraining order against Olson pursuant to section 527.6. As a result of court-ordered mediation, the parties agreed “not to contact or communicate with one another or guests accompanying them, except in writing and/or as required by law,” to “go[] their respective directions away from one another” if “the parties encounter each other in a public place or in common areas near their residences,” and “not to disparage one another.” The question here is whether the nondisparagement clause in the parties’ mediation agreement potentially applies to and thereby limits Doe’s ability to bring a subsequent unlimited civil lawsuit against Olson seeking damages. Doe later filed such a lawsuit; Olson cross-complained for breach of contract and specific performance, arguing that Doe’s suit violated the 1 OLSON v. DOE Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. nondisparagement clause; and Doe moved to strike Olson’s cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. We hold that the mediation agreement as a whole and the specific context in which it was reached — a section 527.6 proceeding — preclude Olson’s broad reading of the nondisparagement clause. Accordingly, Olson has failed to show the requisite “minimal merit” on a critical element of his breach of contract claim — Doe’s obligation under the agreement to refrain from making disparaging statements in litigation — and thus cannot defeat Doe’s anti-SLAPP motion. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 94 (Navellier).) I. Doe and Olson met in 2002 and worked together to acquire and preserve a historic apartment building. Olson acquired the building, converted the apartments into eight condominium units, and ultimately became the owner and part-time resident of one of the units. Olson served as the president of the building’s homeowners association (HOA) board from 2013 to January 2016, and Doe resided in one of the condominium units. In December 2016, Doe filed an unlimited civil lawsuit against Olson and various other defendants, including other residents …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals