Plaintiff Kin Hui, 46, a real estate developer based in Arcadia, and others were sued in a prior action for nonpayment of a commission to Charles Dunn Co., a Los Angeles-based real estate brokerage firm. During the lawsuit, Hui and Boardwalk Capital, LP filed a motion for summary judgment, which Charles Dunn Co. did not oppose. Instead, Charles Dunn Co. executed a release agreement in favor of Hui and Boardwalk, including their successors, assigns, representatives and partners. The release excluded only a company called “Singpoli Pacifica Development, Ltd.” After Hui, Boardwalk and their partners were released, Singpoli Pacifica Development lost the case and became indebted to Charles Dunn Co. on a judgment. However, Hui claimed that despite there being a release agreement between the parties, Charles Dunn Co. engaged in post-judgment collection activities in an attempt to hold him and his company responsible for the payment of the judgment. Additionally, they claimed that a real estate agent for Charles Dunn Co. began making statements in the local real estate community about how Hui and his company allegedly owed him and Charles Dunn Co. for the judgment and refused to pay. Thus, Hui claimed that he was humiliated by the agent’s comments. Hui and his company, Singpoli Pacifica LLC, sued Charles Dunn Co. for breach of contract and defamation. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that despite the release agreement, Charles Dunn Co. still engaged in post-judgment collection activities, which included, amongst other things, attempts to discover information and assets from non-judgment debtors through the use of judgment debtor examinations and subpoenas to banks, as well as actions aimed at Hui and Singpoli Pacifica LLC in order to hold them responsible for the payment of the judgment. However, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that regardless of any theory advanced by Charles Dunn Co., neither Hui nor his company could not be held liable in any way on the judgment due to the release agreement, which was unconditional and included a waiver of Civil Code § 1542. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that despite Hui being released from the prior action, a real estate agent for Charles Dunn Co. began making defamatory statements in the local real estate community and appeared at various Pasadena City hearings claiming that the “developers” of a construction project on the New Constance Hotel in the city of Pasadena, which included developers Hui and Singpoli Pacifica LLC, owed money on a judgment and refused to pay. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that, at a City Council meeting, the real estate agent from Charles Dunn Co. asked that the approval of Singpoli Pacifica’s “development project” be conditioned upon payment of the judgment by Hui. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the real estate agent’s conduct breached the release agreement and defamed Hui. Charles Dunn Co. sought to justify its alleged conduct by claiming that Hui and Singpoli Pacifica LLC were “alter egos,” or “the same as,” or “affiliated with,” or “in common ownership with” the judgment debtor, Singpoli Pacifica Development, Ltd., or were all part of a Singpoli Group of companies. It also sought to defend its’ real estate agent’s statements as “true” based on the same., Hui alleged that his reputation was negatively affected by the false statements made by the real estate agent from Charles Dunn Co. to the city of Pasadena council members and other real estate brokers. Thus, Hui claimed he was humiliated and defamed by the real estate agent’s statements. He alleged that as a result, he sought treatment with both a psychologist and a psychiatrist for several weeks, and was placed on medication. Defense counsel contended that Hui’s business was not affected.