Monday, October 15, 2018
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Action by Waiter Who Facilitated Setting Up Bout Between Mayweather, Pacquiao Not a SLAPP
By Shane Patrick Etchison, Staff Writer
|
|
|
Wiki Commons GABRIEL RUEDA waiter/actor |
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that an anti-SLAPP motion based on the litigation privilege was properly denied in an action by a waiter/actor who claims he was promised a two-percent finder’s fee for introducing former CBS head Leslie Moonves to Manny Pacquiao’s trainer to negotiate the 2015 “Fight of the Century” between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather.
A settlement offer from attorney Keith M. Davidson was not made in anticipation of litigation, Acting Presiding Justice Lamar Baker said in an opinion filed Thursday, which was not certified for publication.
The waiter, Gabriel Rueda (who acts under the name Gabriel Salvador), knew Moonves from the executive’s patronage of Craig’s in West Hollywood, where the plaintiff worked. Rueda also knew Pacquiao’s trainer, Frederick Roach, and arranged for the two to meet.
Soon after the match, Rueda followed up with Moonves to claim the two percent of the gross proceeds of CBS and Pacquiao which he says he was promised, and made what he described as “a settlement proposal.” The next day, Rueda was contacted by Davidson, who claimed he was representing Roach and Pacquiao.
At a subsequent meeting, Davidson offered Rueda $50,000 “tax-free” in exchange for a full release of all parties. Davidson allegedly threatened Rueda that if he refused the offer he would “never work as an actor in this town again.”
Rueda’s Lawsuit
Rueda declined Davidson’s offer, and was harassed over the next few weeks. Eight months after his meeting with the lawyer, he filed suit against Pacquiao, Roach, Davidson, CBS and CBS-subsidiary Showtime, which had aired the fight; he alleged causes of action for breach of contract, extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.
Both Davidson and Pacquiao filed anti-SLAPP motions, contending that the extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action arose from Davidson’s offer, which they claimed had protected activity because it was a settlement offer made in anticipation of litigation.
The plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing that at the time of his meeting with Davidson he was not contemplating litigation, but was simply trying to collect his promised fee.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Sotelo denied the motions, saying:
“Even broadly construed, the complained conduct does not qualify as pre-litigation activity.”
Affirmation of Order
|
|
|
—AP This May 2, 2015 file photo shows Floyd Mayweather Jr., left, hits Manny Pacquiao, during their welterweight title fight in Las Vegas. |
Agreeing, Baker said:
“When Rueda first met with Davidson, he had no reason to know the meeting would be unfruitful. Rueda’s self-described ‘settlement proposal’ to Davidson cannot be likened to a demand letter because Rueda did not threaten litigation if his proposal were not accepted, Rueda did not make the proposal under the advice of an attorney in anticipation of litigation, and the parties had not engaged in prior, unsuccessful negotiations that would permit Rueda’s proposal to be viewed as a demand….
“Nor do defendants show that Davidson’s ‘counteroffer’ to Rueda was anti-SLAPP protected activity undertaken in anticipation of litigation, whether brought by the parties associated with Davidson or by Rueda. With respect to the parties associated with Davidson, none ever filed or threatened to file an action against Rueda, and none of those parties was represented by Davidson in Rueda’s lawsuit.”
Release Not Dispositive
The jurist continued:
“The mere fact that Davidson apparently thought it prudent to secure a release that would prevent Rueda from suing does not mean Davidson must have thought Rueda was seriously considering litigation. Requests or demands for a legal release are, to be sure, often made under circumstances when litigation is in the offing, but not only in those circumstances. Releases are commonly sought by attorneys as a means of protecting against the burdens of litigation even when such litigation is unlikely or not seriously contemplated.”
The case is Rueda v. Pacquiao, B277840.
Rueda was represented by Amman A. Khan of the Khan Law Office in Los Angeles, and Gerald M. Serlin and Wendy S. Albers of Benedon & Serlon in Woodland Hills. Jason T. Lueddeke and David J. Marroso of O’Melveny & Myers’s Century City office argued for Pacquiao; John K. Ly and Jason L. Liang of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Liang Ly were lawyers on appeal for Davidson.
Controversial Attorney
This lawsuit against Davidson is not the Beverly Hills attorney’s first encounter with controversy.
He represented Stephanie G. Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, when she accepted $130,000 from President Donald J. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. He was later sued by Clifford for malpractice; he filed a counter-complaint against the woman and her new attorney, Michael Avenatti, for defamation.
Before that, Davidson represented clients who possessed compromising media or information about various celebrities, helping them negotiate payments in exchange for their silence. He has represented a shell company involved with the publication of Paris Hilton’s sex tape in 2007, a woman who mistakenly believed Charlie Sheen had infected her with HIV, and a man who claimed to have found Hulk Hogan’s sex tape in a box of DVDs at a garage sale.
Davidson was suspended by the State Bar in 2010 for botching one medical malpractice case and failing to keep a potential client informed in another, and for mishandling his client trust account. He received a two-year suspension, which was stayed, with an actual suspension of 90 days.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company