Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court
1999 WL 1086968, 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 743 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a malicious prosecution action, the affirmative defense of unclean hands is not limited to misconduct by the plaintiff that was known to the defendant and influenced the decision to file the prior lawsuit. The defense is triggered by any of the plaintiff's misconduct that is directly related to the subject matter of the prior litigation and affects the equitable relations between the parties.
Facts:
- Kendall-Jackson Winery (Kendall-Jackson) was a well-known producer of high-quality, mid-priced wines, with its Vintner's Reserve chardonnay being a top seller.
- E. & J. Gallo Winery (Gallo), the world's largest wine producer, was primarily known for lower-priced, nonpremium wines and sought to enter the premium market.
- Gallo's market research focused on Kendall-Jackson's success and indicated consumers associated the Gallo name with 'jug wine' and were attracted to colorful grape leaf designs.
- In 1995, Gallo launched 'Turning Leaf,' a new line of premium wine featuring a leaf motif on the label and which did not use the Gallo name.
- Kendall-Jackson alleged that Gallo engaged in improper marketing practices to promote Turning Leaf, such as having its employees move Kendall-Jackson's products on store shelves to place Turning Leaf wines adjacent to them.
- Kendall-Jackson also alleged that Gallo exerted undue influence over retailers, such as by having its employees work for chain stores or providing free labor in exchange for favorable product placement.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 1996, Kendall-Jackson sued Gallo in federal court for trademark infringement and unfair business practices.
- The federal trial court and a jury found in favor of Gallo on all claims.
- The judgment for Gallo was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- In September 1997, Gallo filed the present action against Kendall-Jackson in California state court for malicious prosecution.
- Kendall-Jackson filed an answer, asserting the affirmative defense that Gallo's claims were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
- Gallo moved for summary adjudication to strike Kendall-Jackson's unclean hands defense.
- The state trial court granted Gallo's motion for summary adjudication.
- Kendall-Jackson petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to challenge the trial court's order granting summary adjudication.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a malicious prosecution action, is the affirmative defense of 'unclean hands' limited to only that misconduct by the plaintiff which was known to the defendant and affected the defendant's decision to file the prior lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Thaxter, Acting P. J.
No. The affirmative defense of 'unclean hands' is not limited to misconduct that affected the defendant's decision to file the prior lawsuit. The doctrine is a broad equitable principle that applies when a plaintiff has engaged in misconduct in the particular transaction or connected to the subject matter of the litigation, thereby affecting the equitable relations between the parties. The court rejected Gallo's proposed narrow rule, holding that the 'transaction' at issue was the entire course of conduct regarding the marketing of Turning Leaf wine to compete with Vintner's Reserve. Gallo's alleged improper marketing practices, even if discovered after the initial lawsuit was filed, directly related to this subject matter. The court applied the three-pronged test from Blain, analyzing analogous case law, the nature of the alleged misconduct (violations of Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations), and the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries, concluding that Kendall-Jackson had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Gallo's hands were unclean.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope and applicability of the unclean hands defense in malicious prosecution actions. It clarifies that the defendant's knowledge at the time of filing the original suit is not a limiting factor for the defense. By allowing evidence of the plaintiff's related misconduct discovered later, the ruling makes unclean hands a more potent defensive tool. This strengthens the public policy of disfavoring malicious prosecution claims by allowing courts to consider the entirety of the parties' conduct related to the underlying dispute, ensuring that a plaintiff who also acted inequitably cannot benefit from the tort.
