Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00033617-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property SLAPP / SLAPPback Motion Hearing 37-2023-00033617-CU-OR-CTL HESTER VS LEWISTON CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Lewiston Condominiums Homeowners Association's Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16 is denied.

Pursuant to CCP §425.16, the court evaluates an anti-SLAPP motion in two steps. First, the court determines whether the moving party has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity, i.e., the act underlying petitioner's cause of action fits one of the categories delineated in CCP §425.16(e). (CCP §425.16 (b)(1); Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88-89.) The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie showing that the challenged cause of action arises from the moving party's protected activity. (Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 61.) If the court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the opposing party has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Ibid.) 'Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute – i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit – is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.' (Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 645.) For the reasons below, the Court finds that Defendant has not met its prima facie burden. 'The sole inquiry under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute is whether the plaintiff's claims arise from protected speech or petitioning activity. [Citation.] Our focus is on the principal thrust or gravamen of the causes of action, i.e., the allegedly wrongful and injury-producing conduct that provides the foundation for the claims.' (Castleman v. Sagaser (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 481, 490–491.) 'Motives are irrelevant under section 425.16 . . . . That a cause of action arguably may have been triggered by protected activity does not entail that it is one arising from such.' (Id. at 493–494 (quotation marks omitted).) As the Court in Castleman, not all claims associated with the right of petition or free speech are subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. (Id. at 492.) Here, Plaintiff is seeking quiet title, including declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for intentional interference with economic prospects. The gravamen of the complaint is that Plaintiff is entitled to possession/exclusive use of the porch area and Defendant's failure to record her property interest caused a prospective buyer to back out of purchasing the unit. Although the 2023 vote formalized Defendant's position that Plaintiff was not entitled to exclusive possession/use of the porch, Plaintiff's causes of action do not arise from the vote itself. As Plaintiff's opposition noted, her 'claims would be identical even if the vote never took place.' (ROA 17, pg. 7.) Therefore, Plaintiff's claims are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3030788  18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HESTER VS LEWISTON CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS  37-2023-00033617-CU-OR-CTL The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3030788  18