Less than six months after Massoud Kaabinejadian was hired as a senior vice president and credit administrator for Rabobank, his employment was terminated.
Following the termination, on September 20, 2006, he filed a workers’ compensation claim, contending that he suffered severe emotional distress because Rabobank discriminated and retaliated against him based on his national origin.
After approximately five years of litigating that claim, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ultimately ruled against Kaabinejadian. The WCAB concluded that he did not meet the threshold of compensability for a psychiatric claim under Labor Code section 3208.3, subdivision (d).
Kaabinejadian then filed a petition for reconsideration of the WCAB’s ruling and a writ to the Court of Appeal, which were both denied.
Following the exhaustion of his appeals on the workers’ compensation claim, again representing himself, Kaabinejadian filed a civil complaint in San Bernardino Superior Court against Rabobank and its employee, Cheryl Walker, on December 1, 2011. He alleged a violation of FEHA statutes, and related causes of action.
On April 30, 2012, the court sustained Rabobank’s demurrer “without leave to amend,” dismissed the First Amended Ccomplaint, and denied Kaabinejadian’s motions to compel discovery as moot.
Following the dismissal of his San Bernardino County wrongful termination suit, Kaabinejadian filed a complaint in the instant case on June 4, 2012, in Sacramento County Superior Court against both Rabobank and its defense attorney McGensy, for abuse of process and Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants filed a special anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court agreed with defendants, dismissed the case, and awarded defendants attorney fees. The dismissal was affirmed in the unpublished case of Kaabinejadian v McGensy.
“To combat lawsuits designed to chill the exercise of free speech and petition rights (typically known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs), the Legislature has authorized a special motion to strike claims that are based on a defendant’s engagement in such protected activity.”