Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission
Corrective Deed. Cross-Defendant’s evidence on property tax liability is moot, because Cross-Complainants failed to produce sufficient evidence on that point. Cross-Defendant failed to meet her shifted burden showing a triable issue of material fact. The motion is therefore GRANTED.
Cross-Complainants shall give notice of this ruling. 3 Wyant vs. Defendant A Better Life Recovery, LLC’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Marks Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Daria A. Porta (Porta) is GRANTED.
Defendant has complied with the requirements of CRC Rule 9.40. The court hereby approves the application and orders that Porta may be admitted on a pro hac vice basis in this case.
Defendant to give notice. 4 Saracino v. The motion to strike the complaint of plaintiffs Katalena Saracino Rzakhanova and Mohammed Awad (collectively, Plaintiffs) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 filed by defendant Gulzhanat Rzakhanova (Defendant) is DENIED.
“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. [Citation.] 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 v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384-385, 205, fn. omitted.) Only a claim that satisfies both prongs - i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit - can be stricken under the SLAPP statute. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88-89; Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733.)
Prong One: “At the first step, the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396.) “A claim arises from protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16(b)(1) if the activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” (Newport Harbor Offs. & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 44
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?”
Where there are “mixed” causes of action involving both protected and nonprotected activity, it is the moving party’s burden to identify in the motion the allegations of protected activity and the claims arising from it. A motion directed only to an entire complaint may be denied if some claims involve nonprotected activity. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, §7:772, citing Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 391; see also, Park v. Nazari (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1108 n.5.)
Here, in the notice of motion, Defendant moved for an order striking Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety and dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Notice of Motion at p. 2:1-3.) Defendant maintained in the memorandum of points and authorities that Plaintiffs’ entire