Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00498, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00498    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Zabel, v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV00498

MOTION:                  Special Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint

HEARING DATE:   8/30/2022

SUMMARY OF RULING

The motion is CONTINUED to allow for Dept. R to rule on the notice of related case.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff Alanna Zabel filed the instant action against the City of Santa Monica.  The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) states four cases of action for discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and harassment. Plaintiff alleges that a City Attorney, Jonathan Erwin-Frank, conspired with a third party, Slavena Georgeiva, to target Plaintiff. According to the complaint, they were under the incorrect impression that Plaintiff was wealthy and a business associate of Steven Mnuchin, an investment banker who served as Secretary Treasurer from 2017 to 2021. Erwin-Frank allegedly overlooked and denied factual evidence proving the innocence of Plaintiff and worked directly with Georgeiva in order to organize fabricated evidence to justify the City’s tenant harassment cases against Plaintiff. (See LASC Case no. 21SMCV01722, the (“Tenant Harassment Action”.) Erwin-Frank also harassed Plaintiff by sending a process server to her business, defaming her by calling her a “fucking cunt” and a “fucking bitch” in front of Plaintiff’s patrons and staff.

On June 9, 2022, Defendant brought a special motion to strike against all the causes of action. On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s request for judicial notice. Plaintiff lodged a Second Amended Complaint on July 11, 2022.

On August 2, 2022, Defendant filed a notice of related case. California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A), states: “Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases . . . the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department[.]” The Tenant Harassment Action has a lower case number and is assigned to Department R. Thus, Department R must determine whether these cases are related. This department will not rule on this dispositive motion, since this case appears to fall within the meaning of “related” as defined by Rule 3.300(a)(1)-(2), (4).

            Accordingly, Defendant’s special motion to strike the First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to allow Dept. R to rule on the notice of related case. Defendant is also ordered to request a ruling on the notice from Dept. R.