Telfer-Radzat vs. Sycamore Creek Community Charter School

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides, “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”

Defendants seek to strike certain portions of the Complaint without identifying which statutory ground applies (irrelevant, false, or improper matter under § 436(a), or non-conformity with law or court order under § 436(b)) to each paragraph or item sought to be struck. Rather, Defendants simply identify the paragraphs and items to be stricken, then provide legal arguments without stating what legal arguments apply to which paragraphs or items. Thus, Defendants fail to give the court or opposing party adequate notice of the basis for the challenge.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Case Management Conference continued to February 26, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C44.

Clerk to give notice.

7 Telfer-Radzat vs. Sycamore Creek Community Charter School

2026-01541439 Motion to Strike - Anti SLAPP

Defendant Sycamore Creek Community Charter School’s special motion to strike the complaint of Kimberly Telfer Radzat is DENIED. Sycamore has not met its initial burden showing the subject of the alleged defamatory comment arises from a protected activity.

The termination letter does not arise from any act of Sycamore in furtherance it’s right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue rendering it subject to a special motion to strike. (Cal. Civ. Pro., Section 425.16.) Therefore, Sycamore has not met its burden on the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

In Bishop v. The Bishop’s School (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 893, the court held that a letter terminating a teacher’s employment was not entitled to protection under the anti-SLAPP statute. In that case, the school argued that its termination letter, which concerned a teacher’s inappropriate communications with a student, implicated the public interest of protecting children. While the court agreed that the subject matter touched on a public interest, it

held that the defendants had not shown that the statements in the termination letter furthered or contributed to a public discussion of that issue, and that the trial court failed to undertake the required contextual analysis. The court further held that the school’s decision to terminate the teacher was itself not entitled to anti- SLAPP protection.

Although the subject matter of the letter here, a teacher’s alleged physical mistreatment of a special needs student, plainly implicates a matter of public interest, that alone does not confer anti-SLAPP protection on the termination letter itself. Under Bishop, even where the termination and its stated reasons implicate an issue of public interest, the school must separately demonstrate that the specific statements in the letter furthered or contributed to a public discussion of that issue. A private termination letter sent directly to the teacher being released, without broader public dissemination or connection to an ongoing public proceeding or forum, does not satisfy this requirement.

Case Management Conference continued to February 26, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C44.

Sycamore to give notice.

8 Weaver vs. Chauhan

2025-01500925 Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Continued to 11/12/26.