Piccuta Law Group Scores Appellate Victory In California Court of Appeals
On June 20, 2019, Charles Tony Piccuta and the Piccuta Law Group won an appeal pending in the Sixth Appellate District for the State of California. The appeal was of particular importance to Piccuta as the underlying lawsuit was filed against the Piccuta Law Group and Piccuta’s father. The underlying lawsuit was filed by a disbarred attorney, Gail Schwartz, who the Piccuta Law Group, LLP had previously named in a consumer fraud lawsuit arising from the sale of a vehicle. The disbarred attorney claimed that the consumer fraud lawsuit, in which she was named as a defendant, gave rise to claims for malicious prosecution and negligence after it was dismissed as to her.
The Piccuta Law Group alleged that the disbarred attorney was complicit in assisting her son in the consumer fraud. The disbarred attorney was the leaseholder for the commercial space where her son ran the business. The disbarred attorney also claimed that her son was not at the address and had not been there for years, but this was despite the fact that the son had previously responded to a letter sent by the Piccuta Law Group to that address a few months prior. The Piccuta Law Group suspected that the disbarred attorney was either lying or had written the previous letter on behalf of her son.
The Piccuta Law Group filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the disbarred attorney’s lawsuit and terminate it. The lower court erroneously denied the Anti-SLAPP motion allowing the disbarred attorney’s lawsuit to continue. The Piccuta Law Group appealed the erroneous ruling.
On June 20, 2019, the appellate court issued its decision ruling that the Piccuta Law Group was correct in all aspects of the appeal. Specifically, the appellate court ruled as follows:
“The trial court’s order granting in part and denying in part appellant’s motion to strike is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter a new order granting appellant’s anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety and striking the order granting respondent leave to amend her complaint to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The trial court must also consider and rule on any attorney fees motion brought by appellant under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, subdivision (c). Appellants are entitled to their costs on appeal.”
Piccuta is proud of the appellate victory because it showcases his diverse abilities. Piccuta has appealed numerous matters to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and prevailed. Piccuta has argued in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Piccuta has also argued before the Court of Appeals for the State of California and prevailed. This is yet another appellate victory for Piccuta.
Appellate work is highly specialized and most attorneys that do appellate work tend to do it exclusively. However, Piccuta and the Piccuta Law Group, have the skill set and ability to assist clients in appellate matters should the need arise. In the case from which the appeal arose, Piccuta was defending his law practice and father. Before starting the Piccuta Law Group, LLP, Piccuta worked as a defense attorney handling complicated commercial litigation matters. As such, he was no stranger on how to effectively and efficiently defend a case. Piccuta’s former experience as a defense attorney gives him a unique advantage in the cases he now handles for Plaintiffs that are seriously injured or victims of a civil rights violation. If you or a loved one is in need of skilled attorney to handle a serious matter, contact the Piccuta Law Group today.
