Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case Number: 24STCV11083, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV11083, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 24STCV11083 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 52

Defendant Guadalupe Inchaurregui’s Special Motion to Strike Complaint

Defendant Guadalupe Inchaurregui specially moves to strike the entire complaint by plaintiffs Luis Macias and Maria Macias.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of one exhibit: the complaint in another action, Guadalupe Inchaurregui, et al. v. Luis Macias, et al., Case No. 24NWCV02252. The complaint’s existence, contents, and legal effects are subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code § 452(d).

The court grants defendant’s request for judicial notice.

Legal Standard for Anti-SLAPP Motion

Courts use a two-step process for resolving anti-SLAPP motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16: “First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88 (Navellier).) The defendant must show “the cause of action is based on the defendant’s protected free speech or petitioning activity.” (Id. at p. 89.)

Second, once the defendant establishes the first element, courts “must then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim.” (Navellier, 29 Cal.4th at p. 88.) “[T]he plaintiff need only have stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.” (Ibid., internal quotes and citations omitted.) “[C]laims with the requisite minimal merit may proceed.” (Id. at p. 94.) “Put another way, the plaintiff ‘must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.’ ” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Step One: Protected Activity

Defendant meets her burden of showing the entire complaint seeks to hold her liable for protected activity. Protected activity includes “any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.” (CCP § 425.16(e)(2).) This provision is “construed broadly, to protect the right of litigants” and applies to a communication “if it has ‘ “some relation” ’ to judicial proceedings.” (Healy v. Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) “[A] statement is ‘in connection with’ litigation under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2) if it relates to the substantive issues in the litigation and is directed to persons having some interest in the litigation.” (Neville v. Chudacoff (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1266.) This provision also applies to statements in connection with “anticipated litigation.” (Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 943.)

Plaintiffs allege eight causes of action: 1. Abuse of Process; 2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Deceit; 3. Negligent Misrepresentation; 4. Defamation – Libel; 5. Defamation – Slander; 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 7. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 8. Declaratory Relief. Each cause of action seeks to hold defendant liable for the same events. Plaintiffs hired defendant’s late husband, Francisco Inchaurregui, to do construction work. (Comp., ¶¶ 10-23.) Francisco Inchaurregui died the day he began the work on plaintiffs’ property. (¶ 24.) Plaintiffs allege his death “was completely unrelated to any wrongful acts or overly demanding work stipulated under the Contract” for construction. (¶ 25.)

Plaintiffs allege, “Following the incident, Mr. Francisco Inchaurregui's widow, Mrs. Guadalupe Inchaurregui, initiated actions against Luis Macias and Maria Macias, alleging wrongful death.” (Comp., ¶ 26.) They further allege defendant “initiated false insurance claims for wrongful death.” (Id., ¶ 27.) These factual allegations are directly connected to the lawsuit defendant anticipated and ultimately filed on July 24, 2024. (RJN, Ex. C.)

The fifth cause of action for slander alleges a separate basis for liability: “Mrs. Guadalupe Inchaurregui, through oral communications to third parties, engaged in the making of false statements about the Plaintiffs, Luis and Maria Macias. Specifically, she made statements that suggested the Plaintiffs were responsible for the wrongful death of Mr. Francisco Inchaurregui, allegations that were unfounded and malicious.” (Comp., ¶ 62.) Those statements are also protected. They are connected to the issues in defendant’s wrongful death lawsuit.

Step Two: Probability of Prevailing on the Merits

Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits of their eight causes of action. They did not file a timely opposition to this motion. They filed an opposition brief on September 23, only two court days before this hearing. The court exercises its discretion not to consider the untimely opposition. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).) Even if the court considered the untimely opposition, plaintiffs would not meet their burden of opposing this motion.

Plaintiffs do not meet their burden of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits of any of their eight causes of action. “[A] plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ ” (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940.) Several cases have held that granting an anti-SLAPP motion was proper where the plaintiff “failed to offer any admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case.” (San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State University Research Foundation (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 76, 109 [citing two prior cases].)

The only purported evidence plaintiffs submitted with their untimely opposition is the declaration of their counsel. His declaration makes various legal assertions and attests to the procedural history of this case, his communications with defendant’s counsel, and the wrongful death action filed by defendant. (Saunders Decl., ¶¶ 1-10.) Plaintiffs’ counsel presents no evidence supporting the elements of any of plaintiffs’ causes of action against defendant. Even if he had, he presents no foundation showing he has personal knowledge of those facts.

Regardless of whether plaintiffs filed an opposition or submitted any evidence, the litigation privilege bars all of plaintiffs’ claims. “A plaintiff cannot establish a probability of prevailing if the litigation privilege precludes the defendant’s liability on the claim.” (Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 873, 888 (Digerati).) “ ‘[T]he privilege applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that [has] some connection or logical relation to the action.’ ” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.) Every cause of action seeks to hold defendant liable for pursuing an insurance claim and a lawsuit against plaintiffs or for making statements in connection with those claims.

The complaint also fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for several claims. For example, for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, the complaint does not allege plaintiffs did anything in reliance on the purported misrepresentation or that they suffered damages resulting from something they did in reliance on the misrepresentation. For fraud, the plaintiff’s damages must be “caused by the actions he took in reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations.” (Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1064.)

The complaint alleges, “Plaintiffs, Luis and Maria Macias, justifiably relied on the legal processes and the expectation that claims made against them would be truthful and valid, which aligns with the typical procedural trust in judicial and insurance systems. Their reliance was manipulated to potentially cause them significant financial and reputational harm, as evident from the unwarranted legal and insurance proceedings initiated against them.” (¶ 42.) Plaintiffs simply allege defendant sued them and brought an insurance claim against them. Plaintiffs do not allege they did anything in reliance on any misrepresentation that resulted in them being sued. Suing people does not require their consent. Defendant’s husband died before defendant made any of the alleged misrepresentations. Plaintiffs did not rely on the purportedly false claims against them.

Attorney Fees

Defendant’s memorandum in support of this motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on a motion for attorney fees. Defendant may reserve a hearing using the Court Reservation System.

Disposition

Defendant Guadalupe Inchaurregui’s special motion to strike plaintiffs’ complaint is granted. The court hereby strikes the entire complaint by plaintiffs Luis Macias and Maria Macias without leave to amend.