Rios v. Lazo CA2/3

Filed 5/27/25 Rios v. Lazo CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE ALEJANDRO RIOS, B340827

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24STCV06891) v.

ANTHONY LAZO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bruce G. Iwasaki, Judge. Affirmed. Alejandro Rios, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Justice Firm and Joseph Virgilio; The Milner Firm and Timothy V. Milner, for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________

Plaintiff Alejandro Rios appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Anthony and Yvette Lazo following their successful special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint for defamation pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute,1 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Since plaintiff failed to furnish this court with an adequate record or provide any citation to the record in his briefing, we cannot properly evaluate plaintiff’s claims of error and thus must affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging two causes of action for defamation against defendants for statements they allegedly made that caused Lyft to terminate his employment.2 Defendants filed a special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint (anti-SLAPP motion) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Plaintiff opposed the anti-SLAPP motion and also filed a motion requesting leave to amend his complaint. In June 2024, the court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. As to the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis— whether plaintiff’s claims arose out of defendants’ protected activity—the court wrote: “The Complaint’s allegations are convoluted. Despite their near unintelligibility, the allegations

1 “SLAPP” is an acronym for “so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation.” (FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 139.) 2 Plaintiff’s complaint is not included in the record. We glean these causes of action from the trial court’s statement of decision.