Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 25PSCV00590, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 25PSCV00590, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF AND ANTI- SLAPP SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 425.16 is GRANTED. A proposed order has been filed. (A motion for attorney fees will later be filed.)

This is a defamation case. Plaintiff Juan Pablo Ochoa alleges that Defendants Raymond Zakari DBA Liddle & Liddle A Professional Corporation defamed him and placed him in false light on their fraudulent written 3 day notice.

“A SLAPP suit is a meritless lawsuit ‘filed primarily to chill the defendant's exercise of First Amendment rights.’” (Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateck (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 416, 426.) To protective the valid exercise of free speech, the Legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP statute. (Ibid.) “The statute authorizes a special motion to strike a cause of action arising from the defendant's exercise of his or her constitutional right of petition or free speech, unless the plaintiff establishes a probability of prevailing on the claim.” (Ibid.)

“The procedure made available to defendants by the anti-SLAPP statute has a distinctive two-part structure. [Citations.] A court may strike a cause of action only if the cause of action (1) ARISES FROM an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech ‘in connection with a public issue,’ and (2) the plaintiff has not established ‘a probability’ of prevailing on the claim. [Citation]. [Citation].” (Yang v. Tenent (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 939, 945-46, emphasis added and capitalization added.)

The first step involves a defendant’s burden. The defendant “satisfies the first step of the analysis by demonstrating that the ‘conduct by which plaintiff claims to have been injured falls within one of the four categories described in subdivision (e) of section 425.16]’ [citation], and that the plaintiff's claims in fact arise from that conduct [citation].” [Citation].” (Id. at p. 946.)

Upon a successful showing of the first step, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. (Ibid.) The plaintiff’s burden is “to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success . . . The court's inquiry at this second step is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment.” [Citation]. (Ibid.) In making the determination in the second step, trial court considers “the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.)

The entire subject of Plaintiff's FAC is directed at Defendant's pursuit of its client's right to serve and file an Unlawful Detainer action.

California law provides that the service of the Notice is part and parcel of the protected activity of pursuing an Unlawful Detainer action. As provided in the motion, “[a]n unlawful detainer action and service of notices legally required to file an unlawful detainer action are protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16.” (Motion p. 8, quoting Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 45 (Newport Harbor.) (The court in Newport Harbor also discussed how the "Litigation Privilege" of Civil Code, section 47(b) provides an additional near-absolute immunity from liability arising from communication made in connection with a judicial proceeding.)

Thus, Defendants have satisfied their burden that their conduct—in filing UD lawsuit—is protected and the entirety of Plaintiff’s FAC in fact arise from that conduct.

The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. However, no opposition has been filed.

[1] According to Defendants, the FAC erroneously names Mr. Zakari as a "dba" for Liddle &Liddle. The Notice to Quit against which Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is solely directed was signed by LIDDLE & LIDDLE, APC, with Raymond Zakari, Esq. signing in his capacity as attorney in that firm. Indeed, it appears that Liddle & Liddle’s client/the landlord was/is Maria De Lourdes Luna Bautista, not Raymond Zakari himself.