Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute, involving a rent-controlled apartment located at 12540 Pacific Ave. Apt. 6, Los Angeles, CA 90066 that is protected by the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (the “Property”).  (Compl. ¶ 8.)  The Property was initially occupied by Plaintiff Natalie Medoff’s cousin, Ross Helford, and his wife Rebekka Helford (the “Helfords”).  The Helfords leased the premises from William Hohman, who has since died.  (Compl. ¶ 9.)  After Hohman’s passing, his heirs owned and managed the Property.  (Id.)   

One of the heirs, Van Hohman, was managing the property when Plaintiff became a tenant.  Hohman asked Plaintiff and the Helfords to sign a Consent to Sublease Agreement (“Sublease Agreement”) that labeled Plaintiff as a sub-tenant subject to the same original contract as the Helfords and required her to vacate the premises if or when the Helfords vacated the premises.  Plaintiff signed the Sublease Agreement but now claims the agreement is illegal under LARSO, and Plaintiff further claims Van Hohman never intended to act on its provisions, and indeed, Hohman never attempted to use this “illegal” agreement to evict Plaintiff.  (Compl. ¶11.)   

On or about October 10, 2021, Plaintiff moved into the Property.  (Compl. ¶ 12.)  On or about October 2022, the Helfords moved out and Plaintiff became the primary tenant.  Plaintiff claims Van Hohman was aware of Plaintiff becoming the primary tenant and never referred to the Sublease Agreement or disputed her residency as a primary tenant.  (Compl. ¶ 15.)   

In 2023, Defendant LA Housing Outreach LLC began negotiations with Van Hohman to buy the Property.  While these negotiations were ongoing, Van Hohman asked Plaintiff and Ross Helford to sign an Estoppel Certification.  (Compl. ¶ 16.)  At the time this certification was signed, Plaintiff had been the primary tenant of the Property for over 6 months.  Plaintiff claims that when she signed the certification, Van Hohman understood Plaintiff to be the primary tenant, and that this certification was confirming those terms of tenancy which had existed for over 6 months. (Id.) 

On or about May 18, 2023, LA Housing bought the Property.  (Compl. ¶ 17.)  LA Housing offered Plaintiff $20,000.00 to vacate the Property, but Plaintiff declined.  (Compl. ¶ 18.)  LA Housing then refused to accept rent from Plaintiff.  (Compl. ¶ 19.)  Further, according to Plaintiff, LA Housing began a “campaign of harassment against Plaintiff.”  (Compl. ¶19.)  Specifically, LA Housing (1) hired a private investigator to spy on Plaintiff to confirm that she was living at the Property alone, (2) refused lawful rent payments, (3) shut off utilities; (4) “abused” the right of entry to the premises; (5) failed to make required repairs; (6) completed significant modifications to the Property without notice, and (6) did construction or repairs on weekends or after hours.  (Compl. ¶ 20.)  This alleged campaign of harassment was not unique to Plaintiff and was the experience of many tenants at the Property.  (Compl. ¶ 21.)   

Plaintiff claims Defendant’s motive was to evict all former Van Hohman tenants so that it could raise the rent and replace these tenants with Section 8 tenants, at a much higher rent.  (Compl. ¶ 23.)   

After Plaintiff refused Defendant’s cash offer to move out, Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff (the “Prior Action”).  Plaintiff claims that, prior to and subsequent to filing the lawsuit, Defendant committed numerous other “retaliatory acts” against Plaintiff including but not limited to “increased notices of entry, butchering the Property’s beautiful landscaping ... , and disturbing Plaintiff’s peace with a private investigator, and other agents of Defendants.”  (Compl. ¶ 24.)   

This Prior Action alleged three causes of action against Plaintiff: breach of contract, ejectment, and fraud.  (Compl. ¶ 25.)  In filing the Prior Action, Plaintiff claims Defendant wrongfully framed Plaintiff’s tenancy as illegal, capitalizing on the “illegal” Sublease Agreement and misconstruing the Estoppel Certification as confirming the terms of the Sublease Agreement (when Plaintiff was actually confirming her tenancy as a primary tenant.)  (Compl. ¶27.)  Defendant prevailed in the Prior Action and was successful in evicting Plaintiff. 

This action ensued.  The operative complaint alleges twelve causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of LARSO, (3) violation of the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (LAMC Article 5.3); (4) breach of the implied warranty of habitability (Code Civ. Proc. § 1941.1); (5) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et. seq.); (6) negligent hiring, training and supervision; (7) negligence; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”); (10) intentional misrepresentation; (11) negligent misrepresentation, and (12) retaliatory eviction.   

This hearing is on LA Housing’s special motion to strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §425.16(e)(1).  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims against it rest on the Prior Action and LA Housing’s “activities preparatory to litigation,” which fall within LA Housing’s protected right to petition.  Defendant also argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a probable validity of prevailing on her claims.   

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

LA Housing requests judicial notice of (1) the complaint filed on September 26, 2023, captioned LA HOUSING OUTREACH LLC, etc. v. NATALIE MEDOFF, etc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23SMCV04542 (Ex. 1 to Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”)) and (2) the Judgment for Plaintiff after Bench Trial and Default Prove-Up in the Prior Action filed July 24, 2024 (Ex. 2 to RJN).  The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(d) and 453.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged.  Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has “at least ‘minimal merit.’  If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will strike the claim.”  (Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1009.)   

DISCUSSION  

On the first prong, “courts are to consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.  The defendant’s burden is to identify what acts each challenged claim rests on and to show how those acts are protected under a statutorily defined category of protected activity.”  (Bonni, 11 Cal.5th at 1009.)  “A defendant need only make a prima facie showing at this stage.”  (Ojjeh v. Brown (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1035–1036.)   

Where a cause of action contains “mixed” claims involving both protected and  unprotected activity, courts look at particular allegations within a cause of action.  In this case, “the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them. When relief is sought based on allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the unprotected activity is disregarded at this stage.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396.)  “If a cause of action contains multiple claims and a moving party fails to identify how the speech or conduct underlying some of those claims is protected activity, it will not carry its first-step burden as to those claims.” (Bonni, 11 Cal.5th at 1011). “The nonmovant is not faced with the burden of having to make the moving party's case for it.” (Id.) 

Here, Defendant fails to identify the specific acts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint and show how each of those acts is protected under section 425.16.  Further, Defendant fails to identify how the alleged conduct and/or protective activity serves as the basis of each of the causes of action alleged against it.  Rather, Defendant argues that it prevailed in the Prior Action, and all of Plaintiff’s claims were raised in the Prior Action.  But while this may support a defense of res judicata or collateral estoppel, it does not mean Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the Prior Action and therefore, implicate protected petitioning activity.  By failing to identify how the speech or conduct underlying each claim is protected activity, Defendant fails to meet its first-step burden. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s special motion to strike.   

DATED: May 8, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court