Preview
E-FILED
11/18/2021 12:31 PM
Superior Court of California
JesseJ. Maddox, Bar No. 219091 County of Fresno
jmaddox@Icwlegal.com By: Estela Alvarado, Deputy
Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620
jacksor Lcwl com.
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, Califomia 93704
Telephone: 559.256.7800
Facsimile: 559.449.4535
Attol for Defendants BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALI IRNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DARRYL L. HAMM, and
XUANNING FU
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF FRESNO
11
A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY, Case No.: 21CECG02214
12
gas Plaintiff, [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
13 KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503]
Vv.
Bas 14 Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020
see
a8 15
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
DARRYL L. HAMM, an individual; AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
tin
16 LY NNEITTE ZELEZNY, an individual; DEFENDANT DARRYL L. HAMM’S NOTICE
JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual; OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND
17 SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF
individual; XUANNING FU, an A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S COMPLAINT
18 individual; AND DOES 1 through 50, PURSUANT TO ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE,
CODE CIV. PROC. § 425.16, AND FOR
19 Defendants. MONETARY SANCTIONS
20 Date: December 21, 2021
Time: 3:30 p.m.
21 Dept: 503
from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
23 Code, § 6108)
25 Ml
26 Ml
27 Ml
Ml
1
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
IL RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A PLAINTIFF THREATENS TO SUE CSU IN 2017
B. PLAINTIFF FILES AN EXECUTIVE ORDER 1058
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF AMENDS HIS EO 1058 COMPLAINT TO
INCLUDE HAMM 10
HAMM ENTERS INTO SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS 10
10 HAMM CONTINUES SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS... 11
11 PLAINTIFF AND HIS LEGAL COUNSEL SUE HAMM... 11
gO 12 G PLAINTIFF’ S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS 11
2eo
aa
13 H PLAINTIFF’ S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HAMM ARE BROAD 12
ga
Ba 14 Til. LEGAL ARGUMENT 13
see
es
15 A APPLICABLE ANTI-SLAPP LEGAL STANDARD 13
a8
tid
16 B. PLAINTIFF IS ATTACKING HAMM FOR PROTECTED
CONDUCT 14
17
1 Attomey Conduct Is Protected by the Anti-SLAPP Statute 14
18
2. The Claims Against Hamm Arise From Protected Activity 15
19
a Plaintiffs FEHA and WPA Retaliation Claims. 15
20
b. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 16
21
Cc. Other FEHA Causes Of Action. 17
PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISHA PROBABILITY OF
23 PREVAILING ON ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
HAMM. 17
Hamm Did Not Engaged In The Misconduct Complained Of 17
25
Certain Causes of Action Do Not Exist 18
26
Any Evidence From Hamm Is Privileged. 18
27
Any Conduct By Hamm Is Absolutely Privileged. 18
2
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
Plaintiff Did Not Exhaust His FEHA Administrative
19
a No Tolling Agreement Applies To Hamm. 19
b. Plaintiff’ s DFEH Complaints Are Defective And
Untimely 20
Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust His Administrative Remedies
Under Califomia’s Govemment Claims Act (“GCA”) 21
6
Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust His WPA Administrative
7 Remedies. 21
8} Iv. CONCLUSION.
9
10
11
gO 12
28S
aa
13
ga
Ba 14
see
es
15
a8
tid
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Foster v. Bank
of Am, Nat. Ass’n
(ED. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 4092311 21
State Cases
Aronson v. Kinsella
(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 254 15
Bri v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106 13
Bundrenv. ior Ct.
10 (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 784 16
11 Cabral v. Martins
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 471 14
gO 12
28S Castaneda
v. Di 't of Corr. & Rehab.
aa
13 (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051 21
ga
Ba 14 Chavezv. Mendoza
see
es
(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083 14
15
a8 City of Cotati v. Cashman
tid
16 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69 14
17 Coito v. Superior Ct.
(2012) 54 Cal.4th 480 18
18
Cole v. Antelope Valley Union H.S.
19 (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505 20
20 Commodore Home Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 211 21
21
Comstock. Aber
(2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 931 .... 13
23 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Ct.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 18
Edwards Wildman Palier LLP v. Superior Ct.
25 (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1214 18
26 F mv. McBean
1891) 91 Cal. 63 20
27
Finton Constr., Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC
(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200 8, 14
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
Hansenv. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation
(2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537 15
anken v. GM Hi Elecs.
(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55 18
Jefirav. Cal. State Loi
(2019) 39 Cal.App. 471 15
ensen v. U-Haul Co. of California
(2017) 18 Cal.App.Sth 295 20
Jones v. at Tor Pines P'ship
(2008) 42 Cal.4th1 58 18
Kashianv. Harriman
(2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892 19
10 Kemmererv. Ci of Fresno
(1980) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426 18
11
Laker v. Bd. of Trustees of California State Univ.
gO 12 (2019) 32 Cal.App.Sth 745 19
28S
aa
13 Manavian v. Dep’t. of Justice
ga (2019) 28 Cal.App.Sth 1127 15
Ba 14
UaESes 15
Millerv. Ci of Los
(2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373 15
Bibigt
tid
16 Moorev. of Univ. of California
(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216 15
17
v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
18 (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828 20
19 Namv. of University of California
(2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 15
20
Nevillev. Chudacoff
21 (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1255 14
Okoriev. Los les Unified Sch. Dist.
(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574 14,17
23
Oren Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard,
Weiss & Karma, Inc.
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157 19
25 Palmerv. The Re of the University of Califomia
(2003) 107 C: pp.4th 899
26
People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exch.
v. Anapol
27 (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 809 14
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas
(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 510 14
Reno
v. Baird
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 640 18
v. Hemet Unified Sch. Dist.
(1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792 21
Seltzerv. Barnes
(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 953 14
Anderso!
(1 ) 50 Cal.3d 205 19
Singer Co. v. Cty.
SoD 46 CoLADD 852 20
10 Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.
(2021) 64 Cal.App.Sth 138 17
11
Suarez v. Trigg Lab’
gO 12 (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 118 15
28S
aa
13 Suhv. or Ct
ga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504 20
Ba 14
see
es
Thay v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
15 (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 141 14
a8
tid
16 Thompsonv. Cit of Monrovia
(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860 17
17
Wells Fi Bankv. ior Ct.
18 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201 18
19 Yanowitzv. L’Oreal USA, Inc.
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 15
20
State Statues
21
Civil Code section 47. 18, 19
Govemment Code section 12940. 18
23
Govemment Code section 12960. 20, 21
Govemment Code section 12965. 20, 21
25
Govemment Code section 8547.10 22
26
Govemment Code section 8547.12 9, 22
27
Govemment Code section 910. 21
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
Other Authorities
A.B. 9 (2019) REY€S.....cscsssssssesssssessseessseesssesssseesssesssneesssesssssssseessneessusessseesssssssssssseessneessneessseesssessases 20
Holtzman & i ;, Califomia Practice Guide: Public Sector Employment
Litigation (Rutter Group 2021) 18
Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group
2020) 13, 15
10
11
gO 12
28S
aa
13
ga
Ba 14
see
es
15
a8
tid
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
7
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I INTRODUCTION
Defendant Darryl Hamm (“Hamm”) is University Counsel for Califomia State University,
Fresno (“CSU-Fresno”). Plaintiff A. Sameh El Kharbawy (“Plaintiff”) is a professor at CSU-
Fresno and has along history of intemal and extemal complaints against CSU-Fresno dating back
to at least 2012. Hamm has represented CSU in relation
to Plaintiff’ s complaints since 2017, in
settlement negotiations with Plaintiff’ s attomeys, and he represented CSU in two mediations with
Plaintiff. Plaintiff's newest counsel, Andrew Hillier, rushed to the Court and maliciously filed a
lawsuit naming Hamm as a defendant roughly two weeks after Hamm refused to resolve this
10 matter
on Plaintiff’ s outrageous terms. And if there were any doubt that naming Hamm as a
11 defendant was done maliciously, Plaintiff erased that doubt by (1) suing Hamm for causes of
gO 12 action that cannot be brought against individual defendants, and (2) also suing some of the
2eo
aa
13 highest officials in the CSU system in order to maximize disruption and publicity.
ga
Ba 14 Relevant to this motion, Plaintiff’ s lawsuit and his administrative complaints make clear
see
es
15 he is suing Hamm for being a lawyer - for representing
CSU in response
to Plaintiff’
s intemal
a8
tid
16 complaints under the threat of litigation, for Hamm's role in settlement negotiations with his
17 former counsels, and for his (privileged) role in advising CSU in relation to official proceedings.
18 This blatant vengeance is outrageous, and must be strongly and unequivocally condemned by this
19 Court. “The type of uncivil behavior and specious tactics demonstrated by filing this case
20 represents conduct that brings disrepute to the entire legal profession
and amounts to toying with
21 the courts.” (Finton Constr., Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 204 [anti-
SLAPP in favor of attomey sued for not tuming over hard drive before litigation].)
23 Hamm respectfully
asks the Court to grant this motion, and to award him fees and costs
for being forced to bring it, including reasonable attomeys’ fees and costs for opposing any
25 motion Plaintiff may bring in an effort to stall a ruling on this motion.
26 I RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27 Hamm became University Counsel for Califomia State University, Fresno (“CSU-
Fresno”), in 2016. (Hamm Decl. at 2.) In his role as University Counsel, Hamm is responsible
8
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint
9869633.1 FROO7-003
for providing, managing, and coordinating all legal services for CSU-Fresno, minimizing legal
risks and costs, and advising its administrators on issues related to anticipated and pending
litigation, including allegations of misconduct made by, or against, faculty. (/bid.) His job duties
also encompass direct negotiations or discussions with legal representatives of faculty who have
raised complaints or grievances against CSU-Fresno. (/bid.)
A PLAINTIFF THREATENS TO SUE CSU IN 2017!
Plaintiff's counsel, Kevin Schwin, sent Dr. Joseph I. Castro — then the President for CSU-
Fresno, and now the Chancellor for the entire CSU system — a letter dated June 9, 2017, titled
“Concerns about hiring, employment and administrative abuses at California State University,
10 Fresno.” (Hamm Decl., § 6; Mendoza-Miller Decl. ISO Mtn. to Transfer Venue, J 6, Exh. 1.) In
11 the letter, Schwin stated, “Dr. El Kharbawy has asked our office to take the legal steps necessary
so 12 to investigate and adjudicate his grievances and to pursue his rights. We have initiated this
se
Bas 13 process.” (Id. at p. 2.) The same day, Schwin sent CSU-Fresno’s Associate Vice President of
Bo
> et
24 14 Human Resources, Marylou Mendoza-Miller, an evidence preservation letter. (/d. at § 7, Exh. 2.)
aa
15 The letter identified fourteen (14) individuals by name and job title, and stated Plaintiff was
BEEZ
Ese
AEs 16 experiencing retaliation for protected conduct. (/d. at p. 1-2.) Hamm understood the evidence
Plaintiff erroneously refers to it as an Executive Order 1116 complaint in the lawsuit
22
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint
9869633.1 FRO07-003
Preview
E-FILED 11/18/2021 12:31 PM Superior Court of California JesseJ. Maddox, Bar No. 219091 County of Fresno jmaddox@Icwlegal.com By: Estela Alvarado, Deputy Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620 jacksor Lcwl com. LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE A Professional Law Corporation 5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310 Fresno, Califomia 93704 Telephone: 559.256.7800 Facsimile: 559.449.4535 Attol for Defendants BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALI IRNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DARRYL L. HAMM, and XUANNING FU SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF FRESNO 11 A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY, Case No.: 21CECG02214 12 gas Plaintiff, [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 13 KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503] Vv. Bas 14 Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020 see a8 15 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DARRYL L. HAMM, an individual; AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF tin 16 LY NNEITTE ZELEZNY, an individual; DEFENDANT DARRYL L. HAMM’S NOTICE JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual; OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND 17 SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF individual; XUANNING FU, an A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S COMPLAINT 18 individual; AND DOES 1 through 50, PURSUANT TO ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, CODE CIV. PROC. § 425.16, AND FOR 19 Defendants. MONETARY SANCTIONS 20 Date: December 21, 2021 Time: 3:30 p.m. 21 Dept: 503 from filing fees pursuant to Gov. 23 Code, § 6108) 25 Ml 26 Ml 27 Ml Ml 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION IL RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND A PLAINTIFF THREATENS TO SUE CSU IN 2017 B. PLAINTIFF FILES AN EXECUTIVE ORDER 1058 COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF AMENDS HIS EO 1058 COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE HAMM 10 HAMM ENTERS INTO SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS 10 10 HAMM CONTINUES SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS... 11 11 PLAINTIFF AND HIS LEGAL COUNSEL SUE HAMM... 11 gO 12 G PLAINTIFF’ S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS 11 2eo aa 13 H PLAINTIFF’ S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HAMM ARE BROAD 12 ga Ba 14 Til. LEGAL ARGUMENT 13 see es 15 A APPLICABLE ANTI-SLAPP LEGAL STANDARD 13 a8 tid 16 B. PLAINTIFF IS ATTACKING HAMM FOR PROTECTED CONDUCT 14 17 1 Attomey Conduct Is Protected by the Anti-SLAPP Statute 14 18 2. The Claims Against Hamm Arise From Protected Activity 15 19 a Plaintiffs FEHA and WPA Retaliation Claims. 15 20 b. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 16 21 Cc. Other FEHA Causes Of Action. 17 PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISHA PROBABILITY OF 23 PREVAILING ON ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HAMM. 17 Hamm Did Not Engaged In The Misconduct Complained Of 17 25 Certain Causes of Action Do Not Exist 18 26 Any Evidence From Hamm Is Privileged. 18 27 Any Conduct By Hamm Is Absolutely Privileged. 18 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 Plaintiff Did Not Exhaust His FEHA Administrative 19 a No Tolling Agreement Applies To Hamm. 19 b. Plaintiff’ s DFEH Complaints Are Defective And Untimely 20 Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust His Administrative Remedies Under Califomia’s Govemment Claims Act (“GCA”) 21 6 Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust His WPA Administrative 7 Remedies. 21 8} Iv. CONCLUSION. 9 10 11 gO 12 28S aa 13 ga Ba 14 see es 15 a8 tid 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Foster v. Bank of Am, Nat. Ass’n (ED. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 4092311 21 State Cases Aronson v. Kinsella (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 254 15 Bri v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106 13 Bundrenv. ior Ct. 10 (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 784 16 11 Cabral v. Martins (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 471 14 gO 12 28S Castaneda v. Di 't of Corr. & Rehab. aa 13 (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051 21 ga Ba 14 Chavezv. Mendoza see es (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083 14 15 a8 City of Cotati v. Cashman tid 16 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69 14 17 Coito v. Superior Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480 18 18 Cole v. Antelope Valley Union H.S. 19 (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505 20 20 Commodore Home Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211 21 21 Comstock. Aber (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 931 .... 13 23 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 18 Edwards Wildman Palier LLP v. Superior Ct. 25 (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1214 18 26 F mv. McBean 1891) 91 Cal. 63 20 27 Finton Constr., Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200 8, 14 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 Hansenv. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537 15 anken v. GM Hi Elecs. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55 18 Jefirav. Cal. State Loi (2019) 39 Cal.App. 471 15 ensen v. U-Haul Co. of California (2017) 18 Cal.App.Sth 295 20 Jones v. at Tor Pines P'ship (2008) 42 Cal.4th1 58 18 Kashianv. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892 19 10 Kemmererv. Ci of Fresno (1980) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426 18 11 Laker v. Bd. of Trustees of California State Univ. gO 12 (2019) 32 Cal.App.Sth 745 19 28S aa 13 Manavian v. Dep’t. of Justice ga (2019) 28 Cal.App.Sth 1127 15 Ba 14 UaESes 15 Millerv. Ci of Los (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373 15 Bibigt tid 16 Moorev. of Univ. of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216 15 17 v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. 18 (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828 20 19 Namv. of University of California (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 15 20 Nevillev. Chudacoff 21 (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1255 14 Okoriev. Los les Unified Sch. Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574 14,17 23 Oren Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157 19 25 Palmerv. The Re of the University of Califomia (2003) 107 C: pp.4th 899 26 People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exch. v. Anapol 27 (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 809 14 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 510 14 Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640 18 v. Hemet Unified Sch. Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792 21 Seltzerv. Barnes (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 953 14 Anderso! (1 ) 50 Cal.3d 205 19 Singer Co. v. Cty. SoD 46 CoLADD 852 20 10 Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.Sth 138 17 11 Suarez v. Trigg Lab’ gO 12 (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 118 15 28S aa 13 Suhv. or Ct ga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504 20 Ba 14 see es Thay v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP 15 (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 141 14 a8 tid 16 Thompsonv. Cit of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860 17 17 Wells Fi Bankv. ior Ct. 18 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201 18 19 Yanowitzv. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 15 20 State Statues 21 Civil Code section 47. 18, 19 Govemment Code section 12940. 18 23 Govemment Code section 12960. 20, 21 Govemment Code section 12965. 20, 21 25 Govemment Code section 8547.10 22 26 Govemment Code section 8547.12 9, 22 27 Govemment Code section 910. 21 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 Other Authorities A.B. 9 (2019) REY€S.....cscsssssssesssssessseessseesssesssseesssesssneesssesssssssseessneessusessseesssssssssssseessneessneessseesssessases 20 Holtzman & i ;, Califomia Practice Guide: Public Sector Employment Litigation (Rutter Group 2021) 18 Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) 13, 15 10 11 gO 12 28S aa 13 ga Ba 14 see es 15 a8 tid 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 7 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I INTRODUCTION Defendant Darryl Hamm (“Hamm”) is University Counsel for Califomia State University, Fresno (“CSU-Fresno”). Plaintiff A. Sameh El Kharbawy (“Plaintiff”) is a professor at CSU- Fresno and has along history of intemal and extemal complaints against CSU-Fresno dating back to at least 2012. Hamm has represented CSU in relation to Plaintiff’ s complaints since 2017, in settlement negotiations with Plaintiff’ s attomeys, and he represented CSU in two mediations with Plaintiff. Plaintiff's newest counsel, Andrew Hillier, rushed to the Court and maliciously filed a lawsuit naming Hamm as a defendant roughly two weeks after Hamm refused to resolve this 10 matter on Plaintiff’ s outrageous terms. And if there were any doubt that naming Hamm as a 11 defendant was done maliciously, Plaintiff erased that doubt by (1) suing Hamm for causes of gO 12 action that cannot be brought against individual defendants, and (2) also suing some of the 2eo aa 13 highest officials in the CSU system in order to maximize disruption and publicity. ga Ba 14 Relevant to this motion, Plaintiff’ s lawsuit and his administrative complaints make clear see es 15 he is suing Hamm for being a lawyer - for representing CSU in response to Plaintiff’ s intemal a8 tid 16 complaints under the threat of litigation, for Hamm's role in settlement negotiations with his 17 former counsels, and for his (privileged) role in advising CSU in relation to official proceedings. 18 This blatant vengeance is outrageous, and must be strongly and unequivocally condemned by this 19 Court. “The type of uncivil behavior and specious tactics demonstrated by filing this case 20 represents conduct that brings disrepute to the entire legal profession and amounts to toying with 21 the courts.” (Finton Constr., Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 204 [anti- SLAPP in favor of attomey sued for not tuming over hard drive before litigation].) 23 Hamm respectfully asks the Court to grant this motion, and to award him fees and costs for being forced to bring it, including reasonable attomeys’ fees and costs for opposing any 25 motion Plaintiff may bring in an effort to stall a ruling on this motion. 26 I RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27 Hamm became University Counsel for Califomia State University, Fresno (“CSU- Fresno”), in 2016. (Hamm Decl. at 2.) In his role as University Counsel, Hamm is responsible 8 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint 9869633.1 FROO7-003 for providing, managing, and coordinating all legal services for CSU-Fresno, minimizing legal risks and costs, and advising its administrators on issues related to anticipated and pending litigation, including allegations of misconduct made by, or against, faculty. (/bid.) His job duties also encompass direct negotiations or discussions with legal representatives of faculty who have raised complaints or grievances against CSU-Fresno. (/bid.) A PLAINTIFF THREATENS TO SUE CSU IN 2017! Plaintiff's counsel, Kevin Schwin, sent Dr. Joseph I. Castro — then the President for CSU- Fresno, and now the Chancellor for the entire CSU system — a letter dated June 9, 2017, titled “Concerns about hiring, employment and administrative abuses at California State University, 10 Fresno.” (Hamm Decl., § 6; Mendoza-Miller Decl. ISO Mtn. to Transfer Venue, J 6, Exh. 1.) In 11 the letter, Schwin stated, “Dr. El Kharbawy has asked our office to take the legal steps necessary so 12 to investigate and adjudicate his grievances and to pursue his rights. We have initiated this se Bas 13 process.” (Id. at p. 2.) The same day, Schwin sent CSU-Fresno’s Associate Vice President of Bo > et 24 14 Human Resources, Marylou Mendoza-Miller, an evidence preservation letter. (/d. at § 7, Exh. 2.) aa 15 The letter identified fourteen (14) individuals by name and job title, and stated Plaintiff was BEEZ Ese AEs 16 experiencing retaliation for protected conduct. (/d. at p. 1-2.) Hamm understood the evidence Plaintiff erroneously refers to it as an Executive Order 1116 complaint in the lawsuit 22 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint 9869633.1 FRO07-003