Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC
Annotate this CasePlaintiff Finton Construction, Inc. (FCI) sued defendants Bidna & Keys, APLC (B&K), Howard Bidna, and Jon Longerbone (collectively defendants) for conversion, receipt of stolen property, and injunctive relief. These causes of action arose from defendants’ receipt of an allegedly stolen hard drive pertinent to a pending case in Los Angeles. Defendants were the attorneys of record in that case. They moved to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the litigation privilege applied and the complaint failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion, finding defendants’ actions privileged and that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a possibility of prevailing on the merits. After review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Court of Appeal found FCI’s conduct with respect to this entire case "demonstrative of a particularly nasty type of scorched earth tactics." A purportedly stolen hard drive, which was placed in the hands of defendants solely for litigation purposes, has resulted in an attempt to disqualify counsel and two efforts to depose counsel in the underlying case, a police report, complaints to the State Bar of California, and this entirely derivative and unmeritorious second lawsuit. "FCI’s overreach does not suggest zealousness or righteousness, but a calculated effort to undermine the parties in the underlying case by turning their attorneys into fellow defendants. . . . [W]hile [all attorneys] owe their clients a duty to zealously represent them, that zealousness does not trump the duty they own the courts and the judicial process to prosecute only lawsuits with merit. The type of uncivil behavior and specious tactics demonstrated by filing this case represents conduct that brings disrepute to the entire legal profession and amounts to toying with the courts." Less than 48 hours prior to oral argument, the parties notified the Court they had reached a settlement. The court, however, declined the parties’ request to dismiss the appeal. "The lack of civility demonstrated in this case is a matter of public interest. Moreover, while we cannot be certain, it appears that FCI deliberately decided to keep this action pending until the last possible moment in order to avoid the opinion we write today. We therefore decide in defendants’ favor and publish this case as an example to the legal community of the kind of behavior the bench and the bar together must continually strive to eradicate."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.