Cress v. Ynclino CA1/2

Filed 2/25/26 Cress v. Ynclino CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOHN CRESS, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Respondent, A172433, A172434

v. (San Francisco County Super. MIGUEL YNCLINO, Ct. No. CGC-24-613087) Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff, and Appellant.

John Cress sued Miguel Ynclino, Ynclino filed a cross-complaint, and Cress filed a special motion to strike Ynclino’s cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 425.16). The trial court granted the anti- SLAPP motion, and Ynclino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The trial court awarded Cress $10,373 in fees and costs. Ynclino appeals, and we affirm. BACKGROUND According to the trial court’s order granting Cress’s anti-SLAPP motion,2 Cress had a dispute with Ynclino related to Cress’s investment in

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 We are significantly hampered in our attempt to summarize the facts

and procedural history of this matter because the appellate record provided

1

Ynclino’s business venture in 2021; Cress alleged he relied on Ynclino’s false representations in deciding to invest. Cress alleged he reached a settlement with Ynclino and Ynclino’s company Spear Investment Group, LLC, but no payments were made under the agreement. Consequently, on March 14, 2024, “Cress filed an action bringing claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, securities fraud, and control person liability.” In response, Ynclino filed “a cross-complaint, alleging that Cress improperly disclosed details about his partnership with Spear and Ynclino, in violation of a confidentiality agreement.” In October 2024, Cress filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Ynclino’s cross-complaint.3 According to Cress, “the gravamen of each of Ynclino’s causes of action is that Plaintiff [Cress] breached a purported implied confidential agreement by ‘publicly disclos[ing] confidential information . . . in his Complaint,’ ” citing numbered paragraphs from Ynclino’s cross- complaint. (But, again (see footnote 2), Ynclino’s cross-complaint is not in the appellate record.) Cress argued Ynclino had admitted that the only alleged occurrence of wrongful disclosure was Cress filing his complaint on March 14, 2024,4 but filing a complaint in court is protected activity under the anti- SLAPP statute. Cress argued Ynclino could not meet his burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims because Ynclino’s claims (1) were barred by his release in the settlement agreement,