Plaintiff's Motion for Good Faith Settlement
An anti?SLAPP motion is evaluated under a two’step process. First, the moving party must establish that the challenged claims arise from protected activity--i.e., acts in furtherance of the constitutional right of petition or free speech, including statements or writings made in judicial proceedings or in connection with issues under review by a court. If that burden is met, the analysis proceeds to step two, where the burden shifts to the plaintiff or petitioner to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits by presenting legally sufficient claims supported by admissible evidence. (See Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1009.)
Courts construe protected activity broadly at step one. (See Brodeur v. Atlas Entertainment, Inc. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 665, 674 ["[I}t is ... beyond dispute that the anti-SLAPP statute, including the scope of the term "public interest," is to be construed broadly."].) But in determining the first prong, courts focus on the acts supplying the elements of liability, not merely evidence that may support liability. (See Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1063 ["[I]n ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, courts should consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability."]; see also Gaynor v.
Bulen (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 864, 869 ["To trigger anti-SLAPP protection, the moving party has the initial burden to show the plaintiff alleges constitutionally-protected activity and the claim arises from this activity."] [emphasis in original].)
Respondents have failed to satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The challenged causes of action do not arise primarily from Respondents' protected legal activity. Although the Petition references rejection of a creditor's claim and denial of liability, the purported liability-producing conduct consists largely of the alleged taking, retention, concealment, disposal, and control of estate property. The gravamen of the challenged claims comprises noncommunicative conduct involving estate assets, not protected legal activity.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Because Respondents fail to satisfy the first prong, the Court need not reach the second prong. Nonetheless, the Court notes that Petitioner has submitted sufficient allegations and evidentiary material to demonstrate at least minimal merit for purposes of an anti-SLAPP analysis. For the foregoing reasons, the request to strike the Second Cause of Action, Fifth Cause of Action, and related prayer allegations is DENIED. Respondents' request for attorney fees is correspondingly DENIED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-22-002266 - MOMENI, SASAN vs MALAK, PIERRE - Plaintiff's Motion for Good Faith Settlement - HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel shall appear to address the issue of Mr. Abpikar's claim of ownership in the subject real property.
CV-25-011292 - HILL, TALIA ALEXANDRA vs CASTANEDA, HANNAH ELAINE - Plaintiff's Talia Alexandra Hill's Motion to Compel Hannah Elaine Castaneda's Further Discovery Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,816.75 Against Defendant and/or Defendant's Attorney of Record - DENIED. The Code finds that the subject responses are sufficient pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.220 and contain appropriate explanatory information as to why Defendant is unable to admit or deny the subject requests. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions for Plaintiff's unsuccessful motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.290(d). There, the Court awards $750 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel, payable to defense counsel.
CV-26-001860 - SELFHELP ENTERPRISES vs NORTHEAST TERRITORIES PATTERSON LLC - Defendant 50 Fathom Curve LLC's Demurrer to Amended Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to August 28, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The matter is continued to be heard concurrently with the co-defendant's demurrer scheduled for hearing on 8-28-26. In the meantime, the parties are instructed to continue meet-and-confer efforts in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues presented herein. Defense counsel shall submit a supplemental declaration detailing those efforts and the results thereof no later than August 20, 2026.