Eastwood Ins. Services v. Paulson
Filed 6/8/06 Eastwood Ins. Services v. Paulson CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| EASTWOOD INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY PAULSON et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G036300 (Super. Ct. No. 05CC07554) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, James M. Brooks, Judge. Affirmed.
Mower, Carreon & Desai, and Aashish Y. Desai, for Defendants and Appellants.
Michelman & Robinson, Sanford L. Michelman, Mona Z. Hanna, and Jeffrey D. Farrow, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jeffrey Paulson, as class representative, appeals from an order denying his special motion to strike Eastwood Insurance Services, Incorporated's (Eastwood) complaint for breach of contract and awarding attorney fees to Eastwood. Paulson argues the trial court erroneously denied his special motion to strike and abused its discretion in finding the motion was frivolous and awarding Eastwood attorney fees. Neither of his contentions have merit, and we affirm the order.
FACTS
The underlying complaint and appeal at issue here evolved from a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) regarding a lawsuit Paulson and three sales agents brought as class representatives[1] against their employer, Eastwood, in federal district court in the Central District of California concerning overtime pay. (Parks v. Eastwood Ins. Services, Inc. (C.D.Cal.) No. SA CV 02-507-GLT.) There is a rich procedural history dating back to May 2002, which Paulson recounts in detail, and Eastwood dismisses as irrelevant. For purposes of this appeal, we need not recount that history here.
In February 2005, the parties entered into the Agreement, which required Eastwood to pay the class members $1,200,000. The Agreement also required Eastwood to tender the settlement amount to class counsel's client trust account within a specified time after court approval of the Final Distribution Plan (Plan). The Agreement required class counsel to distribute the settlement funds in accordance with the Plan within 20 days of receipt of the funds. The Agreement also required class counsel to notify Eastwood's counsel of the distribution within five days. Additionally, the Agreement stated, â€
