Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Anti-SLAPP Statute Doesn’t Apply in Immigration Services Suit
Court Says It Need Not Address Whether Plaintiff Brings Actions Against Legitimate Businesses to Extort Settlements
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A trial judge erred in granting an anti-SLAPP motion in an action against a non-attorney and her business, allegedly engaged in providing unlawful immigration counseling services, Div. Four of the Court of Appeal for this district has held, proclaiming irrelevant the defendants’ allegation that the plaintiff is garnering millions of dollars through a practice of coercing nuisance settlements from legitimate operations that cannot afford to mount defenses to lawsuits.
Such purported extortive activity on the part of the plaintiff has gained attention on Los Angeles’s NBC outlet, KNBC.
The unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday, reverses an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis granting a special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, in favor of defendants Linda Young and Young & Young International Consultant Group. Suing them is the Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“IRDC”), allegedly controlled by attorney Sebastian Medvei of the Glendale firm of Medvei Law Group.
‘Public Interest Exception’
San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Craig B. Van Rooyen, sitting on assignment, wrote for Div. Four in declaring that §425.16 does not apply in light of the “public interest exception” contained in §425.17, aimed at stemming excessive resort to the anti-SLAPP law. Sec. 425.17 provides:
“Section 425.16 does not apply to any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public if all of the following conditions exist: (1) The plaintiff does not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff is a member. A claim for attorney’s fees, costs, or penalties does not constitute greater or different relief for purposes of this subdivision. (2) The action, if successful, would enforce an important right affecting the public interest, and would confer a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public or a large class of persons. (3) Private enforcement is necessary and places a disproportionate financial burden in relation to the plaintiff’s stake in the matter.”
Van Rooyen concluded that each of the requisites of §425.17 applies, pointing to allegations that Young and her business are operating in violation of the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”), codified at Business & Professions Code §22440-22448.
Question of Standing
Duffy-Lewis ruled that IRDC lacks standing to assert the defendants’ violation of the ICA, saying:
“Plaintiff in this case is not the aggrieved party; this is not an action brought by one who sought Young’s services. Further, the Attorney General did not bring this claim, as provided in the statute. Casual reference in the Opposition that plaintiff is ‘doing this for the general public’, this is not a representative action. There is nothing in the pleading that says it is representative.
“Therefore, the plaintiff does not have standing to raise a cause of action for this violation. While Young may have violated the B & P Code, this plaintiff has no standing to bring this action.”
Van Rooyen disagreed, noting that under Business & Professions Code §22446.5, an action under the ICA may be brought by an aggrieved party, a public prosecutor, or, under subd. (b), “[a]ny other party who, upon information and belief, claims a violation of this chapter has been committed by an immigration consultant.” He said that “[i]In its complaint, IRDC expressly places itself” in the category of an “other party” and may maintain its action.
Unresolved Question
Not addressed by the opinion, in light of the conclusion that §425.16 does not apply, are the defendants’ allegations that IRDC brought the present suit against them under the ICA in 2024—with allegations mirroring those in initial litigation in 2021 plus added claims— in retaliation for Young’s conduct that followed the payment by her on Dec. 3, 2021, of $12,000 in what she termed “extortion” money.
Medvei had told Young’s lawyer:
“I can do a dismissal with prejudice for 12K, obey the law injunction 10K, full shutdown 8K, those are best offers that will be extended on this case.”
After wiring a $12,030 payment, Young made a complaint about Medvei to the State Bar in 2022 and responded, on camera, to questions from a KNBC, Channel 4, reporter about the plaintiff’s practices. The television report aired on Oct. 19, 2023, and an online version, no longer available, was titled, “Lawyer sues hundreds of local small businesses for allegedly violating law; some call it ‘extortion.’ ”
After bringing a new suit against Young and her company in 2024, Medvei proposed settlement on these terms:
“Ms. Young (i) to pay $50,000 for his attorney’s fees; (ii) to shut down her business; (iii) to issue and send a public letter to NBC/Telemundo to retract her statements and publicly admit that her statements were false and malicious; (iv) to produce all written communications between her and other immigration consultants and their attorneys as pertaining to Immigrant Rights Defense Council and its counsel; (v) to admit making a false State Bar complaint about him. Mrs. Young was not interviewed by anyone at Telemundo.”
Young did not enter into the suggested accord.
Contention on Appeal
In her respondent’s brief, Young set forth:
“Plaintiff and Appellant IRDC is a private entity formed by attorney Sebastian M. Medvei of Medvei Law Group, APC. as the named Plaintiff for the purpose of filing massive litigation under Bus. & Prof. Code §22446.5(b) under the guise of enforcing the ICA on behalf of the public, but in reality, is to extract payments from the defendants through a pay-to-play scheme to collect attorney’s fees for the Medvei Law Group….
“IRDC is 100% owned by IRDC Holdings, LLC….IRDC Holdings, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company formed by Sebastian M. Medvei and 100% owned by Adrien Medvei of the Medvei Law Group….
“As of July 17, 2024, IRDC filed 327 cases and as of October 19, 2023, Mr. Medvei collected $2.2 million dollars in attorney fees.”
Irrelevancy Declared
Avoiding the controversy over IRDC’s practices, Van Rooyen said:
“Whether IRDC’s pattern of litigation amounts to a ‘shakedown’” or ‘pay-to-play scheme’ as claimed by Young, is irrelevant to our analysis. We decide the public interest exemption issue only on the allegations in the complaint and the prayer for relief….IRDC’s subjective intent is beside the point.”
The case is Immigrant Rights Defense Council v. Young, B341348.
Medvei represented the plaintiff on appeal and Ann L. Lakhman of the Orange County law firm of Lakhman & Kasamatsu acted for the defendants.
Trevor Law Group
Young’s allegation against IRDC for abusing the ICA resemble those made against the Trevor Law Group in Beverly Hills—now defunct—for misusing the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) to extort money from small businesses. The three members of that firm, facing disbarment proceedings, in 2003 relinquished their law licenses and have not regained them.
Like criticisms loom concerning the Center for Disability Access, run by the San Diego law firm of Potter Handy LLP. It is frequently accused of squeezing money from small businesses based on alleged violations of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act and the state Unruh Act.
The Offices of District Attorney of Los Angeles and San Francisco counties in 2022 sued Potter Handy alleging that it “files the complaints as part of a shakedown scheme to extract coerced settlements from small business owners in California” but San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow granted an anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the action lacked minimal merit in light of the “litigation privilege.”
Allegations by the MetNews against the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, commonly referred to as Cal/OSHA, based on similar extortive conduct, will be forthcoming.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company