Imuta v. The Wolf Firm CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 2024 No. B330496Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating a probability of success on the merits after the defendants established the claims arose from protected activity. The court further held that the plaintiff's right to a jury trial was not violated because she failed to present a prima facie case, and that a plaintiff cannot avoid an anti-SLAPP motion by seeking to amend the complaint.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting the anti-SLAPP motion without allowing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Whether the trial court's ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to a jury trial.
Whether the plaintiff forfeited claims of error regarding the motion to vacate and evidentiary objections not raised in the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A plaintiff may not avoid a challenge under section 425.16 by amending the complaint before the motion is heard.”

“Section 425.16 does not impair the right to a trial by jury because the trial court does not weigh the evidence in ruling on the motion, but merely determines whether a prima facie showing has been made”

“Imuta did not refute the Wolf attorneys’ showing that her claims against them arose from protected conduct, and she offered no admissible evidence to show she could make a prima facie case.”

Filed 10/18/24 Imuta v. The Wolf Firm CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

YURI IMUTA, B330496

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22LBCV00848) v.

THE WOLF FIRM, ALC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Fumiko Hachiya Wasserman, Judge. Affirmed. Yuri Imuta, in pro. per., Plaintiff and Appellant. IDEA Law Group, Jacqueline D. Serrao, for Defendants and Respondents the Wolf Firm, ALC, Alan Wolf, Parnaz Parto, and Kayo Manson-Tompkins.

Respondents the Wolf Firm, ALC, Alan Wolf, Parnaz Parto, and Kayo Manson-Tompkins (collectively, the Wolf attorneys) are attorneys who commenced unlawful detainer proceedings against appellant Yuri Imuta (Imuta) on behalf of a client. Imuta sued them in a separate civil action. The Wolf attorneys filed a special motion to strike the civil complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16.1 Imuta appeals from orders granting the anti-SLAPP motion and denying her subsequent motion to vacate that order. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Imuta’s Civil Complaint In late 2022, Imuta, appearing in propia persona, filed a civil complaint. Although this pleading is unclear, we can discern her grievances arose from a mortgage loan, foreclosure proceedings, and an unlawful detainer case brought against her by U.S. Bank, NA (U.S. Bank). The named defendants included the judge who presided over the unlawful detainer case and U.S. Bank’s counsel, the Wolf attorneys. Imuta alleged the Wolf attorneys engaged in wrongdoing by filing the unlawful detainer complaint without an affidavit from U.S. Bank establishing the court’s jurisdiction, relying on invalid laws, engaging in abuse, threats, coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, harassment, and deception “to collect a debt where there is no injured party.” Imuta further alleged the Wolf attorneys failed to respond to a “jurisdictional challenge with an affidavit,” misrepresented themselves as working for a lender, and used an “unfair court

Imuta v. The Wolf Firm CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

YURI IMUTA, B330496

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CURREY, P. J.

ZUKIN, J.

AI Brief