Condo owner cannot bring claim against woman who sued him

The owner of a Westwood condominium cannot pursue breach of contract claims against a woman who has sued him for civil rights violations and a host of other claims, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The ruling reverses a 2nd District Court of Appeal decision that allowed Curtis Olson to pursue a breach of contract claim against the woman for violating a nondisparagement clause in an agreement they had reached.

After the woman, who lives in the building, accused Olson of sexual battery and harassment in 2015, she sought a civil harassment restraining order against him pursuant to Section 527.6.

Olson denied all the allegations and reached a mediation agreement with the woman dismissing her complaint and the two agreeing not to contact each other and not to disparage each other, among other provisions.

The question before the court was whether the woman's subsequent lawsuit against him and others violated the nondisparagement clause, allowing Olson to pursue a counterclaim for breach of contract.

Justice Goodwin H. Liu, writing for the court, said no. Instead, the woman could successfully knock his claim out under the state's anti-SLAPP law. Olson v. Doe, 2022 DJDAR 468 (Cal., filed Oct. 9, 2019).

"We hold that the mediation agreement as a whole and the specific context in which it was reached -- a section 527.6 proceeding -- preclude Olson's broad reading of the nondisparagement clause," Liu wrote.

Jean-Claude Andre, a partner with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner who represented the woman on appeal, said in a phone interview that the ruling is "a great decision for victims of harassment and abuse."

The ruling is a procedural one, and does not address the merits of the woman's claims against Olson and a host of co-defendants, including former baseball star Lenny Dykstra, two Los Angeles County Superior Court judges, court staff, and the law firm - Buchalter PC - that represents the defendant.

Eric M. Kennedy, a Buchalter shareholder who represented Olson before the Supreme Court and is also a named defendant in the woman's lawsuit, said he was confident the underlying lawsuit would fail.

"Unfortunately, our legal system can at times be weaponized and abused, and Doe's propensity to make unsubstantiated, publicly filed allegations under the cover of the 'litigation privilege' is not confined to just my client," he wrote in a statement.

Andre said the case may turn out to be anachronistic, because statutes passed subsequently by the state Legislature will make it more difficult for defendants to pursue breach of contract claims in disputes involving alleged sexual misconduct.

The ruling was unanimous. Carl H. Moor, a 5th District Court of Appeal justice, served on the court by assignment.