Aryeh v. Boudaie CA2/1

Filed 12/19/13 Aryeh v. Boudaie CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

JAMSHID ARYEH, B243634

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC472305) v.

DANIEL BOUDAIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Farah Faramarzi, Farah Faramarzi; Law Offices of F. Michael Sabzevar and F. Michael Sabzevar for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________

During a dissolution action, the wife executed a trust deed, without her husband’s knowledge or consent, purporting to convey a jointly owned condominium to her brother- in-law. The brother-in-law recorded the trust deed. When the condominium was sold to a third party, the brother-in-law received in excess of $150,000 from the proceeds. The husband filed this action against the brother-in-law, alleging several causes of action arising out of the creation and recordation of the trust deed. The brother-in-law responded with a special motion to strike, contending this action was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).1 The brother-in-law argued that the creation or recordation of the trust deed was in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body. The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. We conclude the trial court properly found that the creation or recordation of the trust deed was not done in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body or before such a body. (See § 425.16, subds. (e)(1), (2).) Therefore, we affirm. I BACKGROUND The allegations in this appeal are taken from plaintiff’s complaint. Neither side offered any evidence with respect to the anti-SLAPP motion. A. Complaint The husband’s (plaintiff’s) action against the brother-in-law (defendant) alleged the following. “On or about December 4, 2009, Defendant recorded a $300,000.00 lien on certain property owned by Plaintiff, jointly with Plaintiff’s wife Ferial Aryeh, and located [in] Beverly Hills, California 90210 (‘condo or property’), without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. . . .