Ramos v. Shalaby CA3

Filed 2/25/26 Ramos v. Shalaby CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

LYNDA RAMOS, C104197

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV- UNPI-2025-0002776) v.

ANDREW SHALABY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff Lynda Ramos sued her former attorney defendant Andrew Shalaby alleging multiple causes of action after he asserted an allegedly fraudulent lien for attorney fees to an insurance company. Defendant brought a motion to strike strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP), under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 425.16, seeking to strike plaintiff’s entire complaint; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contends the “gravamen” of plaintiff’s complaint is his

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

protected act of asserting a lien. We affirm, concluding defendant has failed to carry his burden establishing every cause of action arises from protected conduct. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging seven causes of action: financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and breach of contract. The background section of the complaint, alleging facts common to all causes of action, stated that in 2022 a car struck plaintiff, and she hired defendant to represent her in the personal injury case. Plaintiff fired defendant and hired another attorney in 2023. Defendant refused to provide plaintiff’s case file to the new counsel and defendant continued to contact plaintiff to convince her to hire him again to the point plaintiff “was forced to block [defendant’s] phone number so that she would not be harassed by his calls and texts.” Defendant then informed the personal injury defendant’s insurance company he had a “false and fraudulent lien for attorney[] fees and costs in the amount of $27,465.” Plaintiff’s new attorney reached a settlement for $100,000 with the personal injury defendant’s insurance company in March 2024 but the insurance company refused to issue payment without listing defendant as a copayee based on defendant’s lien. Plaintiff’s new counsel attempted to negotiate with defendant on his fees by offering to put the demanded amount in a trust; defendant refused. Plaintiff’s new counsel was then forced to file a complaint against the personal injury defendant to preserve plaintiff’s claim. The allegations within the seven causes of action included that defendant wrongly asserted a fraudulent lien that deprived plaintiff of the settlement proceeds; defendant harassed and intimidated plaintiff; defendant breached his duty of loyalty by fraudulently charging plaintiff; defendant made false statements to plaintiff and the insurance