Filed 2/8/21 Sunwest Masonry & Concrete v. Zamora CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SUNWEST MASONRY & CONCRETE, INC., G058685 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01077457) v. OPINION JOSE ZAMORA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer and Mark B. Plummer for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cedar Adams and Adam K. Obeid for Defendants and Respondents Jihad M. Smaili and Smaili & Associates. No appearance by Defendants and Respondents Jose Zamora and Adam K. Obeid. * * * After suffering injuries on the job, followed by a stroke two months later, construction worker Jose Zamora filed a workers compensation claim against his former employer, Sunwest Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Sunwest). Zamora then sued Sunwest for wrongful termination, and Sunwest and a third party for negligence. Zamora eventually settled his workers compensation claim and the wrongful termination action; he then voluntarily dismissed Sunwest from the negligence action with prejudice. Sunwest then sued Zamora and his attorneys for malicious prosecution based on the filing of the negligence action, which Sunwest asserted was filed solely to force a settlement in the wrongful termination case. Zamora’s attorneys filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (§ 425.16).) The trial court granted their motion and entered a judgment against Sunwest. We affirm. As explained below, the filing of the negligence action qualifies as protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the criminal extortion exception to the definition of protected activity does not apply to these facts. Further, Sunwest cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its malicious prosecution claim because it has not established the negligence action was terminated on the merits in its favor. FACTS The following facts are taken from the complaint, declarations, and other evidence submitted on the special motion to strike. Zamora began working on occasion for Sunwest in 2014. In August 2015, he was working on a scaffold at a residential jobsite when some roofing material fell and 2 struck him on the head, knocking him unconscious, and causing a head injury. About a week later, Zamora failed to show up for a job, and Sunwest stopped calling him in to work. Two months later, Zamora suffered a stroke. Zamora initiated a workers compensation claim, asserting the stroke was caused by his head injury; he hired a workers compensation attorney to pursue the action before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. Zamora’s workers compensation attorney was initially informed that Sunwest denied Zamora was an employee subject ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals