Opinion ID: 2582746
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Current Case.

Text: Before the vexatious litigant motions were heard, Cohen (as Han's attorney) filed a new action (the case before us now) for property damage, fraud, assault and battery, and unjust enrichment (case No. EC022640). After a hearing, the trial court found Rusheen to be a vexatious litigant and ordered Rusheen to post a $15,000 cash bond to avoid a default judgment in favor of Han and as a precondition to the filing of any pleadings. Rusheen did not file opposition to the vexatious litigant motion and did not appear at the hearing. Cohen filed a declaration of service signed by a process server, which was later used to obtain Rusheen's default. The process server declared, under penalty of perjury, that he had personally served Rusheen with the summons, complaint, and order declaring Rusheen a vexatious litigant. Cohen moved for a default judgment. After Rusheen failed to post the bond, a default judgment was entered. Han (through a Nevada attorney) filed a notice of foreign judgment in Nevada, where Rusheen had moved, and began executing on Rusheen's property. The Nevada attorney applied for a writ of execution and levied on the judgment. Rusheen moved to vacate the default judgment and the vexatious litigant orders on the ground the judgment was defective. Rusheen claimed he had no notice of the vexatious litigant hearing and denied he was served with the summons, complaint, and order declaring him a vexatious litigant. In opposition, Cohen submitted declarations that stated Rusheen had been personally served with the above documents and the motion to declare him a vexatious litigant. The trial court denied the motion to vacate the default judgment, finding that Rusheen had been personally served with the documents. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. It held there was insufficient evidence that Rusheen was a vexatious litigant and that the trial court had no authority to order the posting of a $15,000 cash bond. It remanded the case and ordered the trial court to grant Rusheen's motion to vacate the default judgment and vexatious litigant orders. On remand, Rusheen initiated the cross-complaint at issue hereagainst Cohen for abuse of process arising from his legal representation. After various procedural events, Rusheen filed a second amended cross-complaint, alleging that Cohen had made an illegal vexatious litigant motion against Rusheen, failed to serve the complaint properly, took an improper default judgment against him without proper notice, permitted his client to execute on the judgment in Nevada, and filed false declarations on the issue of service. Cohen brought a special motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), asserting that there was no reasonable probability Rusheen would prevail because Cohen's conduct was privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). The trial court agreed. It granted the motion, struck the cross-complaint against Cohen, and entered judgment for Cohen. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. It held that the trial court improperly granted the anti-SLAPP motion to strike, finding that Cohen could be liable for abuse of process in enforcing a default judgment obtained through the filing of allegedly false proofs of service. In determining whether Cohen's conduct fell within the litigation privilege, the court followed Drum, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th 1009, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 602, rather than Brown, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th 40, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 891. It found that Cohen's filing of allegedly perjured documents fell within the litigation privilege as communicative conduct, but that his participation in the alleged conspiracy to execute on the resulting improper default judgment was unprivileged, noncommunicative conduct. [1] We granted Cohen's petition for review to determine: (1) whether actions taken to collect a judgment, such as obtaining a writ of execution and levying on the judgment debtor's property, are protected by the litigation privilege as communications in the course of a judicial proceeding; and (2) whether a claim for abuse of process based on the filing of an allegedly false declaration of service is barred by the litigation privilege on the ground the claim is necessarily founded on a communicative act. [2]