Skip to main content

Pre-Litigation Demands That Amount to Extortion? That's A Problem for Plaintiffs


Stenehjem v. Sareen - California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District


Facts:  Stenehjem filed suit against his former employer and its president and CEO for alleged defamation and wrongful termination, among other claims.  The defendants filed a cross complaint against plaintiff for civil extortion due to plaintiff's pre-litigation demand.  Specifically, plaintiff included in his demand a threat that unless the defendants paid plaintiff's claims, plaintiff  would file a False Claims Act and report defendants to federal authorities for allegedly forcing plaintiff to create false accounting documents.  The lower court granted plaintiff's motion to strike the cross complaint and the cross complaint was subsequently dismissed. 

Holding:  The California Court of Appeal held that the former employee's pre-litigation demand was an unconstitutional extortion and therefore the cross complaint was improperly dismissed.  When the Court of Appeal looked at the pre-litigation demand, it held that the threat to report the employer to federal authorities due to alleged criminal activity was "entirely unrelated to any alleged injury suffered by" the employee.  As a result, the demand constituted extortion and was not protected speech under the California anti-SLAPP statute.   

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's granting of plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's cross complaint.  Therefore, defendants could proceed on their cross complaint as to plaintiff's alleged acts which could be held to be extortion.

The Takeaway:  This is a relatively straight forward opinion by the court:  Parties should avoid making any threats to report criminal activity or file an unrelated claim unless settlement demands are met.  It is somewhat common sense, but employers (and employees) should be careful with demands that are made.  Tread carefully!

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Marquez

Date:  June 13, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H038342.PDF


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more