ELISA MEJIA v. RETAILERS CREDIT ASSOCIATION OF GRASS VALLEY, INC, Nevada County Superior Court Case Number CU14080733.



Attorney John Vodonick is listed by the California Court of Appeals as the attorney for the appellant and plaintiff in this case.




According to Lawzilla's understanding of the Court of Appeals ruling, this is what happened:

John Vodonick, Esq., represented a person who was initially sued by Dignity Health for an unpaid medical bill. Plaintiff claimed nothing was owed, but agreed to a payment plan. She then defaulted and Dignity Health filed a debt collection action.

She claimed she was never served with the lawsuit, a default judgment was obtained, and then her wages were garnished.

The court vacated the judgment after seeing she was not served with the complaint, most of her money was returned to her, and Dignity Health voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit.

She then sued Dignity Health for malicious prosecution.

Dignity Health filed a special motion to strike, called a SLAPP motion, arguing the lawsuit was improper and based on protected litigation activity.

The trial court granted the motion against Vodonick's client.

The court of appeals unanimously agreed.

The appellate judges initially said John Vodonick "filed a selective Appellant’s Appendix omitting records necessary for resolution of the appeal, including declarations and exhibits in support of the anti-SLAPP motions, such as the prior court’s finding that the defect in service was a mistake, not fraud. The omissions would be grounds for rejection of the appeal ..."

It was only after Dignity Health supplied them missing documents did the justices decide the merits.




The first issue for the court was whether the claims against Dignity Health involve protected actions protected by the SLAPP law.

The court said Mr. Vodonick mischaracterized his client's complaint to the court and what it alleged.




The judges then said Vodonick cited not authority for an argument he was making about why the SLAPP statute should not apply.




Vodonick argued the law does not protect criminal activity, and cites a Penal Code that Dignity Health allegedly violated. The court of appeals then noted there was no such claim in the complaint. Vodonick was arguing an issue not even alleged in the pleadings.




Attorney John Vodonick then went "even further" in his argument about the "gravamen" of the client's claims and why what Dignity Health did was not protected activity.

The judges said the argument failed "on its face" and misrepresented what was alleged in the lawsuit.




With respect to his client's malicious prosecution claim, the court said there were three requirements:

1. The lawsuit was terminated in his client's favor.

2. There was no probable cause for the lawsuit.

3. The lawsuit was initiated with malice.




Then, after reviewing the argument and evidence, the court said the lawsuit was not terminated in his client's favor.




Finally, the court said it was not established that there was no probable cause, and "no factual basis" for claiming malice.




In the end, the justices rejected virtually everything Mr. Vodonick argued and agreed his client's lawsuit was improper and should be stricken.





Lawzilla Commentary: This really hurts ...

It is Lawzilla's understanding the party losing a SLAPP motion and appeal owes court costs and possibly attorney fees. The legal fees could easily be many tens of thousands of dollars.

Plaintiff started out allegedly owing $2500 to Dignity Health. Made some payments then stopped. Although she had some money garnished, most was returned to her and Dignity Health dropped its claim against her. It seemed from the opinion that she was possibly owed about $400.

But because of the lawsuit and Vodonick losing the appeal the plaintiff could owe tens of thousands of dollars.

People hire attorneys to know the law, respect their interests, and obtain a favorable outcome. Not to destroy them financially.

Based on the statements by the court of appeal, reflecting - in our opinion - shoddy work by attorney John Vodonick, and the potential financial harm to his client, we would likely not recommend Vodonick as a lawyer.

Worse, the unanimous judges repeatedly said Vodonick "mischaracterized" claims in addition to filing a "selective" record. Our opinion of this is Vodonick did not have much credibility and that last thing one wants is an attorney that judges have publicly suggested is not credible.

The California State Bar is reporting numerous acts of wrongdoing by Mr. Vodonick and multiple times he has been disciplined.

Initially, John Vodonick was publicly reproved by the Bar for an unknown reason. Unspecified "duties" were listed, which we take to mean he had to do something, like rectify a wrong.

Then, he was suspended for a couple years after he failed to return money to clients he did not earn. Basically, this seems like stealing. He was ordered to repay more than $53,000 within a year. He didn't. Vodonick obtained an extension of time, but by the time the extension expired he still had not made a simgle payment.

The third incident involved Vodonick being required to file quarterly reports with the Bar about his actions, and he was late 6 (!) times. The Bar then ordered him to take an ethics class.

John Vodonick was admitted to the California Bar in 1974. Bar Number 63089.

PO Box 763
Nevada City, California 95959

Law School:Pepperdine University