Pacheco v. Universal Protection Services CA2/5

Filed 10/21/24 Pacheco v. Universal Protection Services CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

IRVING PACHECO, B331762

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 22STCV11856)

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, L.P.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jill Feeney, Judge. Affirmed. King & Siegel and Robert J. King for Plaintiff and Appellant. Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon, David L. Lewis and Danielle J. Kaufman for Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Irving Pacheco appeals from an order denying his special motion to strike allegations from the cross-complaint (anti-SLAPP motion; Code Civ. Proc., §425.16)1 in favor of respondent Universal Protection Services, LP, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services (Universal). On appeal, Pacheco contends the trial court abused its discretion by declining to consider the untimely motion, the allegations at issue were based on protected conduct, and Universal did not show a probability of prevailing on the merits. We find no abuse of discretion has been shown, and therefore, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pacheco is a former Universal employee. He filed a complaint against Universal in April 2022, and an amended complaint in July 2022, alleging several causes of action, including discrimination and retaliation. On August 19, 2022, Universal filed a cross-complaint against Pacheco based on allegations that Pacheco accessed a former work email address without authorization and falsified email communications to provide to third parties, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as evidentiary support for his discrimination charge. On August 22, 2022, Pacheco served discovery requests on Universal related to the claims in the amended complaint and the cross-complaint, including 131 requests for production, 83 special