Plaintiff, doing business as iWorld, sells accessories for cellular phones and other
portable electronic devices. Cellairis Franchise Inc. (Cellairis) is a competing retailer.
Westfield owns a shopping center in Valencia, California.
Plaintiff and Westfield entered into a lease entitled Short Term License
Agreement (Agreement), dated February 1, 2012. Under the terms of the Agreement,
Westfield granted plaintiff the right to use space in its shopping center for retail sales
for a period of one year ending on January 31, 2013, in exchange for monthly rental
payments.
Section 13(a) of the Agreement stated that the lease was terminable by Westfield
in the event of default, and section 13(d) stated that Westfield could terminate the lease
1 A special motion to strike is commonly known as an anti-SLAPP motion. SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless stated otherwise.
2
at will upon seven (7) days’ written notice. Section 20 of the Agreement provided that
a holdover monthly tenancy would be created if plaintiff failed to surrender the
premises “upon the expiration or earlier termination” of the lease and that the monthly
base rent would increase to 150 percent of the monthly base rent in effect at that time.
Westfield served on plaintiff a notice of termination dated June 25, 2012, stating
that it was terminating the Agreement as of July 3, 2012, pursuant to section 13(d) of
the Agreement. Plaintiff remained in possession of the property.
2. Trial Court Proceedings
Plaintiff filed a Judicial Council form complaint on June 29, 2012, alleging
counts for (1) breach of contract, against Westfield; (2) negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage, against Westfield; (3) intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage, against Westfield; (4) unfair competition (Bus. &
Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), against Westfield; (5) violation of Civil Code
section 789.3, against Westfield; (6) negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage, against Cellairis; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage, against Cellairis; (8) unfair competition, against Cellariis; (9) declaratory
relief, against both defendants; and (10) an injunction, against both defendants.
Westfield filed a complaint against plaintiff for unlawful detainer on July 6,
2012. The trial court in the unlawful detainer action entered a judgment on August 15,
3
2012, awarding possession of the leased premises to Westfield and declaring the lease
terminated and forfeited.2
Plaintiff filed a Judicial Council form first amended complaint on September 17,
2012, eliminating the fifth count for violation of Civil Code section 789.3. She alleges
counts for (1) breach of contract, against Westfield; (2) negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage, against Westfield; (3) intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage, against Westfield; (4) unfair competition, against
Westfield; (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, against
Cellairis; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, against
Cellairis; (7) unfair competition, against Cellariis; (8) declaratory relief, against both
defendants; and (9) an injunction, against both defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that Cellairis induced Westfield to terminate the Agreement and
that Westfield had no right to terminate absent a default. She alleges that she became
a holdover tenant under section 20 of the Agreement after the purported termination by
the notice of termination dated June 25, 2012. She alleges that Westfield failed to serve
a 30-day notice to terminate her monthly holdover tenancy and that Westfield’s demand
for possession after July 3, 2012, violated her rights as a holdover tenant and therefore
breached the Agreement.
Plaintiff alleges in her first count that Westfield breached the Agreement by
“giving unilateral notice of termination without cause and in bad faith for the purpose of
2 We judicially notice Westfield’s complaint and the judgment in Westfield, LLC v. Ulkarim (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. 12H02428). (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
4
transferring Plaintiff’s successful business to Cellairis, [and] breached ¶20 of the
[Agreement], providing [plaintiff] is a month-to-month tenant upon holdover after
7/3/2012.”
Plaintiff alleges in her second and third counts for negligent and intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage that Westfield interfered with her
business by (1) interfering with her telephone land-line credit card processing;
(2) failing to restore her telephone land-line service during a service interruption on
November 25, 2011, and again from January 21-23, 2012; (3) notifying her employees
and other vendors that her business would be replaced by Cellairis or another vendor,
and openly measuring her space during business hours for that purpose; and (4) offering
her business to other vendors. She alleges in her fourth count for unfair competition
that the same conduct alleged in her prior counts violated the unfair competition law
(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.).
Plaintiff alleges in her eighth count for declaratory relief that controversies have
arisen as to whether (1) Westfield can terminate the Agreement without cause, absent
any default, for the purpose of benefiting her business competitor; (2) a monthly
holdover tenancy has arisen under section 20 of the Agreement; and (3) the notice of
termination dated June 25, 2012, actually terminated the Agreement. She seeks
a declaratory judgment resolving these controversies.
Westfield filed a general demurrer to the first, second, third, fourth, eighth, and
ninth counts. Westfield also filed a special motion to strike the same counts and
5
requests for judicial notice of certain documents.3 Plaintiff opposed the demurrer and
the special motion to strike. The trial court granted the special motion to strike in its
entirety in an unsigned minute order filed on December 19, 2012, and took the demurrer
off calendar as moot.
The trial court stated in its minute order that Westfield’s service of a notice of
termination was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute and that each count was
based in part on Westfield’s service of the notice. The court stated that the litigation
privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)) “arguably” was a complete defense to the
complaint against Westfield and that plaintiff failed to establish a probability of
prevailing on the merits because she failed to address the litigation privilege in her
opposition to the special motion to strike. The court therefore granted the special
motion to strike in its entirety. The court did not rule on Westfield’s requests for
judicial notice. The court filed a signed order granting the special motion to strike on
December 21, 2012.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a)) of
the order granting the special motion to strike. The trial court stated that there was no
basis for reconsideration, but granted reconsideration and affirmed its original ruling.
3 Plaintiff dismissed her ninth count without prejudice before the hearing on the special motion to strike and demurrer.
6
Plaintiff timely appealed the order granting the special motion to strike.4 The
trial court later awarded Westfield $14,911.50 in attorney fees as a defendant prevailing
on a special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1)).
CONTENTIONS
Plaintiff contends (1) her complaint against Westfield does not arise from
protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute; (2) she established a probability of
prevailing on the merits, and the litigation privilege is inapplicable; and (3) if the order
granting the special motion to strike is reversed, the attorney fee award must also be
reversed.
DISCUSSION
1. Special Motion to Strike
“A special motion to strike is a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits brought
to chill the valid exercise of a party’s constitutional right of petition or free speech.
Marlin, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 154, involved two tenants’ complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief filed after the landlords filed with the city a notice
under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code, § 7060) of their intent to permanently remove the
apartments from the rental market and served a notice to vacate on the tenants. The
tenants disputed the landlords’ purported right under the Act to evict them. The trial
court granted the landlords’ special motion to strike the complaint. The Court of
Appeal reversed. (Marlin, supra, pp. 156-158.)
Marlin, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 154, concluded that the complaint was based on
the allegedly unauthorized termination of the tenancy, and was not based on the filing
and service of the notices. (Id. at pp. 161-162.) Marlin stated: “The filing and service
of the notices may have triggered plaintiffs’ complaint and the notices may be evidence
in support of plaintiffs’ complaint, but they were not the cause of plaintiffs’ complaint.
Clearly, the cause of plaintiffs’ complaint was defendants’ allegedly wrongful reliance
on the Ellis Act as their authority for terminating plaintiffs’ tenancy. Terminating
a tenancy or removing a property from the rental market are not activities taken in
furtherance of the constitutional rights of petition or free speech.” (Id. at pp. 160-161.)
Assuming arguendo that the filing and service of the notices was protected activity
under the anti-SLAPP statute, Marlin held that the tenants’ complaint was not based on
and did not arise from such protected activity. (Id. at pp. 160-162.)
DFEH, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, involved a complaint filed by the
Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) for disability discrimination after
a tenant’s eviction. The landlord served a notice of its intent to remove the property
12
from the rental market pursuant to local rent control regulations. The tenant claimed
that she was disabled and requested an extension of time to vacate the unit as provided
by law, but she refused to provide detailed information about her disability. The
landlord refused her request, filed an unlawful detainer complaint, and evicted her. The
DFEH’s complaint alleged counts for housing discrimination, denial of civil rights, and
disability discrimination. The trial court concluded that the DFEH’s complaint did not
arise from protected activity and denied the landlord’s special motion to strike. The
Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at pp. 1275-1281.)
DFEH, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, concluded that the gravamen of the
DFEH’s complaint was disability discrimination involving the failure to accommodate
the tenant’s disability. The gravamen was not an attack on any other act committed by
the landlord in the rental property removal process or the eviction process. (Id. at
pp. 1284-1285.) DFEH stated that the complaint might have been triggered by the
landlord’s filing and service of papers in order to remove the property from the rental
market, but such conduct was not the reason for the complaint. Instead, the complaint
was based on the claim that the landlord’s refusal of an extension of time to vacate,
which was not an act in furtherance of the owner’s free speech or petition rights, was
a failure to accommodate a disability and therefore constituted disability discrimination.
(Id. at pp. 1287-1288.) Accordingly, DFEH concluded that the complaint did not arise
from protected activity. (Id. at p. 1288.)
Clark, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th 1281, involved a complaint filed by a former
tenant against a landlord after her eviction. The landlord evicted the plaintiff from
13
a rent-controlled apartment purportedly to allow the landlord’s daughter to reside in the
unit, as allowed under a rent stabilization ordinance (RSO). The plaintiff alleged that
the reason given was fraudulent and that the landlord failed to pay relocation expenses
due under the RSO. The plaintiff alleged counts for violation of the RSO, fraud, and
unfair business practices. The trial court granted the landlord’s special motion to strike
the complaint. The Court of Appeal reversed. (Clark, supra, at pp. 1284-1285.)
Clark, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th 1281, concluded that the complaint was based on
the termination of the plaintiff’s tenancy and purported removal of the unit from the
rental market for a fraudulent reason, and was not based on filing or prosecuting an
unlawful detainer complaint. (Id. at p. 1286.) Clark explained: “[Plaintiff’s] action
against [the landlord] is not based on [the landlord’s] filing or service of the notices of
intent to evict, it is not based on anything [the landlord] said in court or a public
proceeding, and it is not based on the fact that [the landlord] prosecuted an unlawful
detainer action against her. The complaint is based on [the landlord’s] allegedly
unlawful eviction, in that she fraudulently invoked the RSO to evict [plaintiff] from her
rent-controlled apartment . . . and also that she failed to pay [plaintiff’s] relocation fee.”
(Clark, supra, at p. 1288.) Clark concluded that the allegedly fraudulent act committed
in terminating the tenancy and the failure to pay relocation fees were not protected
activity, and therefore concluded that the complaint did not arise from protected
activity. (Id. at pp. 1289-1290.)
Oviedo, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 97, involved a tenant’s complaint against her
landlord after the filing of a complaint for unlawful detainer. The landlord sought to
14
evict the tenant after she failed to pay a rent increase, but voluntarily dismissed the
complaint before trial. The tenant then filed her complaint alleging counts for violation
of an RSO and malicious prosecution, among other counts. The trial court granted the
landlord’s special motion to strike the tenant’s complaint. (Id. at pp. 105-107.) The
Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. (Id. at p. 115.)
Oviedo, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 97, concluded that the count for violation of the
RSO was based on the landlord’s alleged unlawful rent increase in excess of the amount
allowed under the RSO, and was not based on the landlord’s filing of the complaint for
unlawful detainer or service of prior notices. The count for violation of the RSO
therefore did not arise from protected activity. The malicious prosecution count, in
contrast, specifically attacked the filing of the unlawful complainer complaint and
therefore arose from protected activity. (Oviedo, supra, at pp. 110-111.)
Copenbarger, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, involved a complaint by a sublessee
against a sublessor and others after the sublessor served a 30-day notice to cure
followed by a three-day notice to cure or quit. The sublessee disputed its obligation
under the sublease to repair improvements on the property and alleged that a 60-day
notice was required under the sublease. The sublessee alleged counts for declaratory
relief, breach of the sublease, and intentional interference with contract. The sublessor
later filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. The trial court granted a special motion to
strike the sublessee’s complaint. The Court of Appeal reversed. (Id. at pp. 1241-1243.)
Copenbarger, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, stated, “Although an unlawful
detainer action itself is protected activity under section 425.16, terminating a lease is
15
not. [Citations.] A complaint arising out of or based on the dispute or conduct
underlying the unlawful detainer action is not subject to a special motion to strike.” (Id.
at p. 1245.) Copenbarger concluded that the complaint was based on a dispute over the
parties’ rights and obligations under the sublease, the sublessor’s alleged breach of the
sublease by failing to serve a 60-day notice, and acts by other defendants allegedly
inducing the sublessor to terminate the sublease. The complaint was not based on either
the service of the 30-day notice or the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint, and
therefore did not arise from protected activity. (Id. at pp. 1247-1248.)
The lesson we learn from this line of authority is that a tenant’s complaint against
a landlord filed after the service of a notice of termination and the filing of a complaint
for unlawful detainer does not arise from those particular activities if the gravamen of
the tenant’s complaint challenges the decision to terminate the tenancy or other conduct
in connection with the termination apart from the service of a notice of termination or
filing of an unlawful detainer complaint. We decline to follow Birkner, supra,
156 Cal.App.4th 275, and Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates (2008)
160 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Feldman) to the extent that those opinions suggest a different
rule.
Birkner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 275, involved a complaint filed by four tenants
after their landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy in order to allow his mother
to occupy the unit. The tenants claimed that three of the tenants were not subject to
eviction under an RSO because of their age or disability and length of tenancy, but the
landlord refused to rescind the termination notice. The landlord later rescinded the
16
notice after his mother died. (Birkner, supra, at pp. 278-279.) The tenants alleged
counts for wrongful eviction in violation of the RSO, negligence, breach of the covenant
of quiet enjoyment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at p. 278.) The
trial court concluded that the complaint did not arise from protected activity and denied
the landlord’s special motion to strike the complaint. (Id. at p. 280.) The Court of
Appeal reversed. (Id. at p. 287.)
Birkner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 275, concluded that the tenants’ complaint was
not based on the filing of an unlawful detainer complaint, which was never filed, but
instead was based “upon the service and refusal to rescind a notice to terminate
plaintiffs’ tenancy.” (Id. at p. 281.) Birkner stated that the service of a notice of
termination was protected activity because it was a legal prerequisite to filing an
unlawful detainer complaint. (Id. at p. 282.) Birkner distinguished Marlin, supra,
154 Cal.App.4th 154, by quoting language from that opinion stating that the tenants’
complaint in Marlin was based on challenging the landlords’ reliance on the Ellis Act in
terminating the tenancy, and was not based on the filing and service of notices.
(Birkner, supra, at p. 282.) Birkner also distinguished DFEH, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th
1273, by quoting language from that opinion stating that the DFEH’s complaint was
based on alleged discrimination, and was not based on the service of notices or filing of
papers to remove the property from the rental market.5 (Birkner, supra, at p. 283, fn. 3.)
5 Birkner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 275, similarly distinguished Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. v. Pearl Street, LLC (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1308 by quoting language from that opinion stating that the complaint by the rent control board was based on the defendants’ alleged charging of an illegal rent, which preceded the defendants’
17
But Birkner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 275, failed to explain why the tenants’
complaint was not based on the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy, which was
not protected activity, rather than on the service of the notice of termination. Birkner
therefore failed to explain why its conclusion differed from the conclusions in Marlin,
supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 154, and DFEH, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273.
Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, involved a cross-complaint filed by
subtenants against the owner of an apartment building and others after the owner filed
and then dismissed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the tenant and subtenants.
The subtenants alleged counts for retaliatory eviction, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, wrongful
eviction, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. (Id. at pp. 1473-1475.) The
trial court found that all counts alleged in the cross-complaint arose from protected
activity and that the subtenants failed to establish a probability of prevailing only on the
count for retaliatory eviction, and therefore granted the owner’s special motion to strike
only as to that count. Both sides appealed. (Id. at pp. 1476-1477.) The Court of
Appeal concluded that the motion should have been granted on all counts, with the sole
exception of the count for negligent misrepresentation. (Id. at p. 1499.)
Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, concluded that the subtenants’
cross-complaint was based on the filing of an unlawful detainer complaint, the service
of a prior notice to quit, and statements threatening eviction. (Id. at pp. 1479, 1483.)
protected activity of filing papers to restore apartment units to the rental market, and was not based on the act of filing papers. (Birkner, supra, at p. 282.)
18
Feldman stated that each those acts was protected activity. (Id. at pp. 1479-1481.)
Feldman distinguished Marlin, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 154, by quoting language from
that opinion stating that the tenants’ complaint in Marlin was based on challenging the
landlords’ reliance on the Ellis Act in terminating the tenancy, and was not based on the
acts of filing and serving notices. (Feldman, supra, at p. 1481.) Feldman distinguished
DFEH by noting the conclusion stated in that opinion that the complaint was based on
disability discrimination, and was not based on the acts of filing and serving papers to
remove the property from the rental market. (Feldman, supra, at p. 1482.) Feldman
stated that the subtenants’ cross-complaint in Feldman was more similar to the tenants’
complaint in Birkner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 275, which was based solely on the
service of a notice of termination and refusal to rescind the notice. (Feldman, supra, at
pp. 1482-1483.)
Feldman stated, “We are mindful that the lines drawn in these cases are fine
ones. However, we are reminded by our Supreme Court in Navellier [v. Sletten], supra,
29 Cal.4th 82, that the ‘focus’ of the statute ‘is not the form of plaintiff’s cause of action
but, rather, the defendant’s activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liability . . . . ’
(Id. at p. 92; accord, Birkner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 281.)” (Feldman, supra,
160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483.) Feldman stated that the filing of an unlawful detainer
complaint, service of a notice to quit, and statements threatening eviction in that case
were not merely evidence of wrongdoing or activities triggering the subtenants’
cross-complaint, but instead the cross-complaint actually arose from those activities.
(Ibid.)
19
We find it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the holdings in Birkner, supra,
156 Cal.App.4th 275, and Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, that the causes of
action arose from the protected activity of filing or serving papers in connection with
the termination of a tenancy or an eviction, rather than from the underlying decision to
terminate the tenancy or evict the tenants, with the holdings in Marlin, supra,
154 Cal.App.4th 154, DFEH, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, and later opinions such as
Copenbarger, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, that the causes of action arose from the
underlying decision to terminate the tenancy or evict the tenants, rather than from the
protected activity of filing or serving papers. We decline to follow Birkner and
Feldman to the extent that those opinions suggest a rule contrary to our conclusion.
b. Breach of Contract and Declaratory Relief
Plaintiff alleges in her first count for breach of contract that Westfield breached
the Agreement by terminating it in bad faith and without a default. She also alleges that
the purported termination gave rise to a monthly holdover tenancy under section 20 of
the Agreement and that Westfield breached the Agreement by demanding possession of
the property without properly terminating the holdover tenancy. She alleges in her
eighth count for declaratory relief that controversies have arisen with respect to these
same matters and as to whether the notice of termination dated June 25, 2012, actually
terminated the Agreement.
The gravamen of the first and eighth counts is that Westfield breached the
Agreement by terminating it in bad faith, with no valid grounds for termination, and
20
despite plaintiff’s holdover tenancy, and that the notice of termination was ineffective.
The gravamen of these counts is not an attack on the service of the notice of termination
or the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint. Rather than attack such service and
filing themselves, the first and eighth counts attack the underlying decision to terminate.
The challenged conduct does not involve protected activity under the anti-SLAPP
statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)), and plaintiff does not argue that it does.
We therefore conclude that the first and eighth counts do not arise from protected
activity.
c. Negligent and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Plaintiff alleges in her second and third counts for negligent and intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage that Westfield interfered with her
business by (1) interfering with her telephone land-line credit card processing;
(2) failing to restore her telephone land-line service during a service interruption on
November 25, 2011, and again from January 21-23, 2012; (3) notifying her employees
and other vendors that her business would be replaced by Cellairis or another vendor,
and openly measuring her space during business hours for that purpose; and (4) offering
her business to other vendors.
The gravamen of the second and third counts is that Westfield wrongfully
interfered with plaintiff’s business by engaging in the specified conduct. These counts
arise from the conduct specified above and do not arise from the service of the notice of
termination or the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint. Rather than attack the
21
service and filing themselves, these counts attack other conduct that occurred during
plaintiff’s tenancy or in connection with the termination of her tenancy. The challenged
conduct does not involve protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and plaintiff
does not argue that it does. We therefore conclude that the second and third counts do
not arise from protected activity.
d. Unfair Competition
Plaintiff alleges in her fourth count for unfair competition that the same conduct
alleged in her prior counts violated the unfair competition law. The fourth count is
based on the same unprotected conduct as the counts discussed above, and therefore
does not arise from protected activity.
3. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s complaint against Westfield does not arise from protected activity
under the anti-SLAPP statute and therefore is not subject to a special motion to strike.
Accordingly, plaintiff need not establish a probability of prevailing on her claims, and
we need not decide whether she did so.
Our reversal of the order granting the special motion to strike means that
Westfield is not a defendant prevailing on a special motion to strike entitled to an
attorney fee award under the statute (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1)). This compels the reversal
of the fee order regardless of whether it was separately appealed. (Harris v. Wachovia
Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1027; but see Allen v. Smith (2002)
94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284 [stating that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to
22
reverse a postjudgment fee award upon reversing the judgment because the fee award
was not separately appealed, but that the trial court should do so on remand].)
DISPOSITION
The order granting the special motion to strike and the order awarding attorney
fees to Westfield as the defendant prevailing on the motion are reversed. Plaintiff is
entitled to recover her costs on appeal.
CROSKEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
KLEIN, P. J.
ALDRICH, J.
23
Filed 7/14/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
MONIRA ULKARIM, B247174
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC487579) v.
WESTFIELD LLC, ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION Defendant and Respondent.
THE COURT:
The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on June 17, 2014, was not certified
for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now appears that the opinion
should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered.
[There is no change in the judgment.]
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a tenant's complaint challenging a landlord's decision to terminate a lease does not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, even if the termination was preceded by a notice of termination or an unlawful detainer action. The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint was the allegedly wrongful termination of the lease and related business interference, rather than the act of filing or serving legal notices.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff's complaint arises from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's special motion to strike.
Disposition. Reversed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that the complaint does not arise from protected activity.”
“The lesson we learn from this line of authority is that a tenant’s complaint against a landlord filed after the service of a notice of termination and the filing of a complaint for unlawful detainer does not arise from those particular activities”
“Terminating a tenancy or removing a property from the rental market are not activities taken in furtherance of the constitutional rights of petition or free speech.”