Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC04788, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04788     Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (Anti-SLAPP Motion)

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Xian Chen

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Zeze Sun

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 425.16)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Xian Chen’s Special Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NONE

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NONE

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NONE

OPPOSITION:          Filed on February 1, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 8, 2023.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff Xian Chen (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendant Zeze Sun (“Defendant”).

On September 27, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.  On October 3, 2022, Defendant also filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Chen for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed the instant Special Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint under Anti-SLAPP Statute (“Motion”).

Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”) on February 1, 2023.  No reply has been filed.

II.              Special Motion to Strike

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant moves to strike Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Cross-Complaint under the Anti-SLAPP statute. (Mot. p. 2.)  On February 1, 2023, Defendant filed an Opposition arguing against the merits of the Motion.

            However, in a limited jurisdiction court, “[m]otions to strike are allowed only on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 92(d).)  The Court of Appeal held: “Thus, construing section 92(d) to permit anti-SLAPP motions to be brought in limited civil cases would undermine the Legislature’s goal of efficient and cost-effective litigation in such cases.  [¶] For all these reasons, we conclude that section 92(d) precludes a defendant from bringing a special motion to strike in a limited civil case.”  (1550 Laurel Owner's Association, Inc. v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1158.)

            The Court also notes that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has not filed any proof that the moving papers were served on Defendant/Cross-Complainant.  Furthermore, the Notice of Motion does not indicate the address or name of the courthouse where the hearing on the Motion will take place.

            Thus, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Xian Chen’s Special Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.