Mitchell v. Schapiro-Thorn, Inc. CA1/3

Filed 2/3/16 Mitchell v. Schapiro-Thorn, Inc. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

MICHAEL MITCHELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A142337 v. SCHAPIRO-THORN, INC. et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14717891) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Michael Mitchell, Sean Mitchell, and Anne-Marie Mitchell appeal from two orders, both dated June 3, 2014, which, in pertinent part, granted motions of defendants Schapiro-Thorn, Inc., Suzie Thorn, Wild, Carey & Fife, Paul D. Fife, and William M. Henley, to strike the complaint as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure1 section 425.16 (hereafter also referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute). We conclude defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that all of plaintiffs’ causes of action arise out of defendants’ protected activity in a judicial proceeding, and that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a probability of prevailing on their causes of action. Accordingly, we affirm.2

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 In the June 3, 2014, order related to the anti-SLAPP motion filed by defendants Schapiro-Thorn, Inc. and Suzie Thorn, the superior court also awarded those defendants the sum of $3,000 for attorney fees and costs. In their briefs, plaintiffs present no argument regarding the award of attorney fees and costs. Because we conclude there is no basis to reverse that portion of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion filed by

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendants Schapiro-Thorn, Inc. and Suzie Thorn (Schapiro-Thorn) represented Daniel Mitchell (Mitchell) in a marital dissolution proceeding in San Francisco (San Francisco litigation). When Mitchell failed to pay his attorney fees and costs, Schapiro- Thorn secured a money judgment against him on November 18, 2013 (San Francisco judgment). Mitchell filed a notice of appeal, but did not post a bond or otherwise seek to stay enforcement of the judgment in the trial court. To enforce the San Francisco judgment, Schapiro-Thorn, represented by defendants Wild, Carey & Fife, Paul D. Fife and William M. Henley (Wild), arranged for the recording of an abstract of the San Francisco judgment in Alameda County. To facilitate the filing of a writ of execution, defendants obtained a “litigation guarantee” showing the ownership of certain property in Alameda County (Alameda County property). According to defendants, the Alameda County property was either owned by Mitchell, or, his transfer of the ownership to his three adult children, plaintiffs Michael Mitchell, Sean Mitchell, and Anne-Marie Mitchell, was a transfer in fraud of creditors. The San Francisco Superior Court clerk issued a Writ of Execution directed to the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, as the levying officer. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office mailed a Notice of Levy to Mitchell, and posted a Notice of Levy on the property addressed to “occupant,” giving notice that the Alameda County property was “under levy and subject to public auction by the Alameda County Sheriff.” In response to the Notices of Levy, plaintiff Sean Mitchell arranged for the filing and service of a third party claim of ownership and superior right to possession of the Alameda County property in the San Francisco Superior Court. While the San Francisco judgment enforcement proceedings were ongoing, on March 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed the complaint in this case alleging seven causes of action: slander of title, cancellation of cloud on title, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with