Hamm v. Foxx
Filed 5/23/06 Hamm v. Foxx CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
RICHARD HAMM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THANH TRUONG FOXX et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C049956 (Super. Ct. No. 04AS03929) |
In this malicious prosecution action, the trial court granted a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 425.16 filed by defendants Thanh Truong Foxx and Robert Holley against plaintiff Richard Hamm. On appeal, Hamm contends the trial court erred in sustaining Foxx and Holley's objections to the evidence he offered to show a probability of prevailing on the merits of the action, erred in denying his request to conduct discovery, and erred in concluding he did not show a probability of prevailing. Finding no such error, we will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The genesis of this action lies in a falling out between two married couples who briefly operated a Thai restaurant together in San Jose. In January 2000, one of the couples -- Yotin and Sophia Tanomrat -- filed a complaint for damages against the other couple -- Jack Benjach and Mary Nguyen -- in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The gravamen of the Tanomrats' complaint was that in November 1999, the month the restaurant closed, Benjach and Nguyen defamed them by making false assertions about them at their workplaces.
The Tanomrats were represented in their action against Benjach and Nguyen by two attorneys -- Foxx (formerly Thanh T. Truong) and Holley. Benjach and Nguyen were represented by Hamm.
Following a court trial in May 2001, the court ordered Benjach and Nguyen to pay Yotin Tanomrat $150,000 in general damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. The court also ordered Nguyen to pay Sophia Tanomrat $85,000 in compensatory damages.
In June 2001, the Tanomrats -- still represented by Foxx and Holley -- filed another complaint against Benjach and Nguyen and Benjach's mother, Bung Aun Rogers, based on Benjach and Nguyen's allegedly fraudulent transfer of their house to Rogers.
In April 2002, while the fraudulent transfer case was still pending, but after Hamm no longer represented Benjach in that case, Benjach filed a malpractice complaint against Hamm for Hamm's representation of him in the Tanomrats' first action. Benjach claimed Hamm â€
