Mulhearn v. ADR/Preferred Business Properties CA2/4

Filed 1/22/26 Mulhearn v. ADR/Preferred Business Properties CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JESSICA MULHEARN, B346384

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 25CHCV00009) v.

ADR/PREFERRED BUSINESS PROPERTIES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary I. Micon, Judge. Affirmed. Jessica Mulhearn, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jay Woollacott; Raiskin & Revitz and Steven J. Revitz for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jessica Mulhearn, in pro. per., appeals from the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motions to strike plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff does not challenge the underlying merits of the anti-SLAPP motions. Instead, her sole contention on appeal is that defendants failed to properly serve her the moving papers. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff was previously employed as an on-site resident manager of an apartment complex owned and managed by defendants Ozer-Zelzah Apartments and ADR/Preferred Business Properties (collectively, defendants). On March 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants alleging wrongful termination and various California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)-based claims. On August 23, 2022, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement. Under the agreement, plaintiff received a one-time payment of $170,000. The agreement also allowed plaintiff to remain in her apartment rent free for two years ending August 31, 2024, by which date she agreed to vacate the premises. In exchange, plaintiff agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against defendants with prejudice, with the superior court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The agreement required the parties to waive all known and unknown claims against each other. Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on August 1, 2022, and a dismissal was entered on September 8, 2022.