Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV03967, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03967    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           1239 23^rd Street Homeowners Assoc. v. Kurtzer

CASE NO.:                23SMCV03967

MOTION:                  Anti-SLAPP

HEARING DATE:   4/2/2024

Legal Standard

            Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 permits the Court to strike causes of action arising from an act in furtherance of the defendant's right of free speech or petition, unless the plaintiff establishes that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.  “The anti-SLAPP procedures are designed to shield a defendant’s constitutionally protected conduct from the undue burden of frivolous litigation.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 393.) “The anti-SLAPP statute does not insulate defendants from any liability for claims arising from the protected rights of petition or speech. It only provides a procedure for weeding out, at an early stage, meritless claims arising from protected activity.” (Id. at 384.)

            “Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps. First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 384, citation omitted.) The California Supreme Court has “described this second step as a ‘summary-judgment-like procedure.’ The court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims. Its inquiry 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. It accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law. ‘[C]laims with the requisite minimal merit may proceed.’” (Id. at 384-385 [citations omitted].)

Analysis

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a special motion to strike the cross-complaint filed by Defendant Kurtzer. On February 20, 2024, Kurtzer dismissed the cross-complaint. The motion is therefore substantively moot, and taken off calendar. The dismissal, however, does not moot the issue of mandatory attorneys’ fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff may file a noticed fee motion to recover any appropriate fees. (Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 869, 878~879.)