GREG CAMARILLO vs LATICHA PEREZ

2026CUDF058591: GREG CAMARILLO vs LATICHA PEREZ 06/05/2026 in Department 41 Hearing on Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP Motion)

Below is the Court’s tentative decision with respect to the matter on calendar. The Court may adopt, modify, or change the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

If you wish to submit on the Court’s tentative decision without appearing, please send an email to the following address by 8:00 a.m. on the date of the hearing with counsel for all parties’ copied on your email: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov Please state on the subject line of your email: “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative decision is subject to change.

Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.

If you are an attorney or Pro Per and your case is on calendar, you can appear remotely by Zoom for Case Management Conferences and Law & Motion matters. You cannot appear remotely for trials or any matter where testimony or evidence is going to be admitted. This court no longer allows remote appearances by CourtCall. Zoom is the exclusive means by which counsel can appear remotely. Represented parties, interested persons, witnesses, and the public at large, cannot attend remotely. You cannot forward the Court's Zoom link to others so that they can attend remotely. Courtroom 41 is open to the public and such individuals can attend by physically appearing in the courtroom. While appearing remotely by Zoom, it is unlawful

2026CUDF058591: GREG CAMARILLO vs LATICHA PEREZ

to video or audio record the proceedings or take screen shots/still photos of the proceedings.

To appear remotely by Zoom, you must submit an email request to the Court by 4 p.m. the court day before your hearing to: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov, with a subject line that includes “NOTICE TO APPEAR VIA ZOOM.” Your email request must identify the name of the attorney/party who will appear by Zoom and all counsel/parties must be copied on your email request. When appearing by Zoom, you will need to mute yourself until your case is called at which point you will also have to turn on your camera. The court calendar begins at 9 a.m. Assuming you have given advance email notice the court day before your hearing of your intent to appear by Zoom, you may enter the Courtroom 41 Zoom waiting room at 8:15 a.m. on the day of your hearing through this link: https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/j/81985625079?pwd=cHV2MENmWGNLSnJCMlM5Sk1xRk 0vdz09

For information about Judge DeNoce including his case management and trial rules, please visit: www.DeNoce.com

______________________________________________________________

Tentative Decision:

Defendant Laticha R. Perez’s Special Motion to Strike Complaint and Request for Attorney’s Fees.

Defendant Laticha R. Perez’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Defendant Laticha R. Perez’s Special Motion to Strike the Complaint is GRANTED. The moving party has sustained her burden of proof.

Ruling on a special motion to strike involves a two-prong inquiry and a shifting burden. The initial burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant falls within the ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. If the moving defendant satisfies that initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a

2026CUDF058591: GREG CAMARILLO vs LATICHA PEREZ

probability of prevailing on its claims. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.)

In order for a cause of action to fall within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute, it must “[arise] from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1).) In determining whether a defendant has satisfied its burden on the first prong, a trial court may consider the parties’ pleadings and declarations submitted by both the moving and opposing parties. (Brill Media Co., LLC v. TCW Group, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 324, 329, 339.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e) sets forth four subcategories of conduct that constitute “act[s] in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Here, Defendant has made a threshold showing that her written statements in her DVRO arise from protected activity pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e). Thus, the burden of proof has shifted to Plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claim. To date, the motion is not opposed. As such, Plaintiff has not met his burden. Accordingly, this motion is granted.

Finally, as the motion is being granted Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant should proceed by noticed motion to obtain such fees. (Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 946.)

3