Tort – Abuse of process – SLAPP

Listen to this article

Where two defendants have asserted counterclaims for abuse of process, the counterclaims should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute, as the defendants have failed to show that the plaintiff’s exercise of her right to petition by bringing suit lacks any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and caused them to suffer actual injury.

“Both Limin Chen and Ting Ting Chen assert counterclaims for abuse of process. At oral argument, counsel for Limin and Ting Ting conceded that these counterclaims should not have been brought and are subject to dismissal under G.L.c. 231, §59H, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute. ‘The acronym ‘SLAPP’ stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation.’ The Gillette Co. v. Provost, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 133, 134 n.2 (2017). …

“At oral argument, Limin and Ting Ting concede that … they should not have asserted their counterclaims for abuse of process. However, neither of them has voluntarily dismissed these counterclaims.

“As a result, the Court must allow the anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss and is required to award Ms. Guan the reasonable attorneys’ fees that she incurred in bringing those motions. If a court grants a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, it ‘has no discretion whether to grant costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; under the statute [G.L.c. 231, §59H] the grant of both is mandatory.’ …

“Limin Chen has stated a viable counterclaim for recognition of a so-called resulting trust in shares of Great Taste [Bakery and Restaurant, Inc.] that were issued in Guan’s name. The Court will therefore deny the motion to dismiss count II of Limin’s counterclaims. …

“Drawing all reasonable inferences from the counterclaims in favor of Limin Chen, as the Court must, the counterclaim alleges that Limin contributed capital to Great Taste, in exchange he was granted a 50 percent ownership interest in the corporation, Limin decided to have Guan hold his 50 percent interest in Guan’s name just in case something happened to Limin, and Guan did not contribute any funds or any other consideration.

“These allegations plausibly suggest that an implied resulting trust was created for the benefit of Limin Chen in the Great Taste shares that were issued in Guan’s name. …

“The Court will allow the motion to dismiss the counterclaims for unjust enrichment, misappropriation of Great Taste’s assets, and conversion because those claims may only be asserted derivatively on behalf of Great Taste. The Court will therefore dismiss these counterclaims without prejudice to being reasserted as derivative claims, if Limin and Ting Ting Chen can satisfy the statutory prerequisites for doing so. …

“The Court will allow the motion to dismiss Tao Chen’s fraud counterclaim because it is not pleaded with the particularity required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 9(b). …”

Guan, et al. v. Chen, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-092-25) (5 pages) (Salinger, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Docket No. 2384CV02198-BLS2) (June 6, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.