Gross v. Adams

Filed 2/21/07  Gross v. Adams CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los  Angeles County.

Patricia L. Collins, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Pratter & Young, Robert J. Young, Michael S. Pratter for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Adams & Kessler, Mark A. O'Brien, Adrian J. Adams, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

            A condominium homeowner sued the attorney who represented his homeowners' association, asserting claims for invasion of privacy and defamation.  Faced with a special motion to strike the pleading, the homeowner elected to dismiss all of his claims against the attorney.  One year later, after the statutes of limitations had elapsed on his claims, the homeowner attempted to bring the attorney back into the action as a fictitiously named Doe defendant.  The trial court rejected the homeowner's belated effort to resurrect his claims against the attorney with a Doe amendment, because the homeowner could not genuinely claim prior ignorance of the attorney's identity and involvement in the alleged wrongdoing.  We affirm.

FACTS

            In May 2004, Richard Gross instituted suit against Sierra Towers Homeowners Association, its board of directors, and respondent Adrian Adams, who is the association's attorney.  Gross alleged that the defendants wrongfully installed a hidden camera and recording device outside of his condominium unit, as part of a campaign to harass him into moving away.  In July 2004, Gross enlarged upon his claims with the filing of a first amended complaint (FAC) against the same defendants.  Like the original complaint, the FAC alleged that the defendants wrongfully installed a video recorder outside of his unit to covertly monitor his activities, which Gross discovered on May 13, 2003.  The FAC added causes of action for libel and slander, alleging that the defendants defamed Gross by telling Sierra Towers homeowners that Gross had AIDS and conducted illegal activities in his unit.

            Adams and his codefendants pursued a special motion to strike Gross's pleading as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).  In response to the anti-SLAPP motion, Gross dismissed his claims against all of the individual defendants, including Adams, believing that the defendants' conduct was privileged.

            In December 2004, Gross filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against the homeowners' association and its manager.  The SAC alleges claims for negligence, invasion of privacy and defamation, arising from the defendants' secret videotaping of his unit and statements made about him at a homeowners' meeting and in a letter to the homeowners.  Gross amended the SAC in August 2005, to show that â€