Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV31343, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31343    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 45

BRANDON BLAKE vs COLENSO EVELYN

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE under ccp section 425.16

Date of Hearing:        May 27, 2025                         Trial Date:   None

Department:               45                                           Case No.:    23STCV31343

Moving Party:            Defendant Colenso Evelyn

Responding Party:     No opposition

BACKGROUND

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff Brandon Blake filed the instant Complaint against Defendant Colenso Evelyn for 1) Libel; 2) Unlawful Business Practices violating Business and Professions Code § 17200; and 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

On March 13, 2024, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, Blake & Wang P.A., and Saturn Harvest, LLC for 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Contract Fraud; 3) Actual Fraud; 4) Disability Abuse; 5) Recoverin Defrauded Monies; 6) Dissolution of Contracts. 

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Colenso Evelyn’s Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Colenso Evelyn moves the court for an order granting their special motion striking the complaint filed by Plaintiff Brandon Blake.

An anti-SLAPP motion must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint or amended complaint. (CCP § 425.16(f).) Thereafter, a motion may be permitted in the court’s discretion “upon terms it deems proper.” (CCP § 425.16(f).)  “[A] court has the discretion to consider, and grant or deny on the merits, a special motion to strike filed after the 60-day deadline even if the moving defendant fails to request leave of court to file an untimely motion.” (Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.)

The court uses its discretion to deny the motion. Plaintiff filed the complaint in December 2023. Defendant sought to quash the service of summons in February 2024, which was denied. Defendant also sought to compel arbitration in August 2024, which was granted. However, according to the Status Report, arbitration was terminated March 25, 2025.

Defendant fails to provide why they waited to bring the instant motion. Even if the court were to consider the motion, Defendant has not demonstrated the cause of action arises from protected activity.

Accordingly, Defendant’s special motion to strike is DENIED.