Victoria Flores worked as a packer for Parter Medical. In February 2018, she submitted a claim for workers’ compensation related to an injury to her right hand and wrist, and was placed on medical leave. Flores hired The Dominguez Firm, LLP to handle her claim. Jace H. Kim, Carlos Andres Perez and Javier Ramirez were associate attorneys of the Dominguez Firm.

Flores received medical treatment and physical therapy and, in early 2019, underwent surgery on her right hand and wrist from Dr. Liz Stark. In June 2019, Dr. Stephen Nichols, the panel qualified medical examiner appointed to Flores’s case, issued his report. Dr. Nichols said Flores suffered from “severe osteoarthritis” and would continue to need occupational therapy. In his opinion, Flores should be precluded from “lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling objects in excess of 20 pounds on a frequent basis.”

On September 4, 2019, Attorney Robert Choi, representing Republic Indemnity Company of California (Republic Indemnity), sent a letter to attorney Juan Dominguez of the Dominguez Firm, proposing settlement options for Flores’s claim in light of Dr. Nichols’s report. Choi said, “Your client has the option of clarifying further with [Dr. Nichols], to move forward with the interactive process with the employer to address Dr. Stark’s permanent work restrictions, and then to finalize her case by way of a Stipulated Award with future care. [¶] However, I have been authorized to offer your client a Compromise and Release settlement” if Flores agreed to submit a voluntary resignation from her employment with Parter Medical in return for the lump sum settlement.

Thereafter, Choi and Attorney Allan Carvalho of the Dominguez Firm discussed settlement options via e-mail. The Dominguez Firm initially proposed that Flores sign a release acknowledging her “separation” from Parter Medical. Choi said that separation language would not be acceptable and that Flores would need to resign from her employment with Parter Medical. The Dominguez Firm acquiesced and forwarded to Choi a resignation signed by Flores. The document was titled “Voluntary Resignation From Employment” and stated that Flores was resigning “voluntarily and of [her] own free will without undue influence or coercion of any kind.” Flores received a payment of $60,000 in settlement of her claim. The settlement was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

After settling her workers’ compensation claim, Flores, still represented by the Dominguez Firm, filed a civil complaint against Parter Medical alleging six causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

At her deposition, Flores admitted she signed the resignation at the Dominguez Firm in connection with settling her workers’ compensation claim. But she also testified that before signing it, she had called about getting her job back and was told “there wasn’t any more work for me there. And they told me that I was not to show up there, I was not to call there, and they hung up on me.” Flores said she spoke with “Lina at human resources” and she said there was no more work for her because she had hired an attorney.

On September 22, 2021, Parter Medical sent a letter to the Dominguez Firm asserting that based on Flores’s admissions that she had voluntarily resigned, it was clear she had not been terminated and the Dominguez Firm had “engaged in malicious prosecution” in filing the action. Parter Medical requested a dismissal of the action.

Flores did not dismiss the action, and Parter Medical subsequently moved for summary judgment. In August 2022, summary judgment was granted in favor of Parter Medical in the underlying action. Parter Medical then filed this action for malicious prosecution against the Dominguez Firm and individual defendants Kim, Perez and Ramirez. Parter Medical alleged the Dominguez Firm initiated each of the six causes of action in the underlying action without probable cause and with malice.

Defendants in the malicious prosecution action filed their anti-SLAPP motion in October 2023, arguing they brought and maintained the underlying action with a good faith belief the action was tenable. Defendants requested the trial court to strike the entire complaint as to all defendants, as to each cause of action individually, or alternatively as to all allegations of malicious prosecution that occurred before September 22, 2021 (the date Parter Medical sent the letter to defendants about Flores’s deposition admissions).

The trial court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Parter Medical Products v. The Dominguez Firm CA2/8 – B335336 (June 2025)

To defeat defendants’ motion, Parter Medical was required to demonstrate its malicious prosecution action was “ ‘both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain’ ” a judgment in its favor if its evidence was credited. (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 (Wilson).)

The Court of Appeal concluded that “There is no dispute the grant of summary judgment in favor of Parter Medical was a favorable termination of the underlying action. Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion contested only the existence of the elements of probable cause and malice. We conclude Parter Medical met its burden of showing the requisite minimal merit to proceed with its malicious prosecution action.”

“Defendants argue that just because the underlying action did not survive summary judgment does not mean the action was legally untenable. This is unquestionably true, but it does not answer the question of whether a reasonable attorney, knowing what the Dominguez Firm knew from its representation of Flores in the workers’ compensation proceeding, would have thought the claims against Parter Medical were legally tenable.”

“The showing by Parter Medical adequately establishes, for purposes of defeating the motion, that the Dominguez Firm and its attorneys knew, from its representation of Flores in the workers’ compensation proceeding, that she had resigned and had not been terminated and that she had physical limitations that impacted her ability to continue to do her job as a packer. The reasonable inference from that evidence is that the claims against Parter Medical were knowingly pursued for the improper purpose of attempting to obtain additional monies from Parter Medical without regard to the merit of the wrongful termination and FEHA claims.”