Lo v. Ma CA2/1

Filed 3/3/16 Lo v. Ma 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

PAUL LO, B256812

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC061042) v.

ALEX MA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William D. Stewart, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas Business Group, Stephan J. Thomas, Michael Liu, and Robert D. Lipscomb, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Cole Pedroza, Joshua C. Traver and Cassidy C. Davenport; Fierstadt & Mans, Jack A. Fierstad and Brandon A. Carroll, for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Prior to filing suit, a putative plaintiff sends an email to “several individuals” within the relevant business community accusing a putative defendant of misconduct. After the plaintiff sues defendant for some (but not all) of that alleged misconduct, the defendant cross-claims for libel based on the email. Is the email a “writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a . . . judicial body” that 1 renders it subject to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(2))? On the facts of this case, we conclude it is not. We accordingly affirm the trial court’s order denying the plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion and awarding $7,200 in attorney’s fees. FACTS AND PROCEUDRAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, cross-defendant, and appellant Paul Lo (Lo) and defendant, cross- complainant, and respondent, Alex Ma (Ma) are real estate developers who have collaborated on projects for more than a decade. In August 2013, Lo sued Ma for breach of an oral contract, fraud, conversion, and rescission for Lo’s misconduct with respect to three of their real estate development projects—one in Monterey Park, one in Alhambra, and one in Hemet. More specifically, the complaint alleged that Ma breached his promises to repay loans Lo made for the Monterey Park project in April 2013 and manipulated that project’s books to make the unpaid balance on the loan look smaller; that Ma misappropriated money from the Alhambra property for his personal use; and that Ma breached his promise to award Lo a 20 percent interest in the Hemet project. Just one month earlier, in July 2013, Lo had sent out an email to “several individuals within the real estate development community, including investors and business partners that had worked with and/or were currently working with [Ma] on development projects.” In the email, Lo purported to “share” with the recipients a “story about what happened between [Ma] and [him] recently.” The email proceeded to detail Ma’s alleged misconduct with respect to the Monterey Park, Alhambra, and Hemet