Edwards v. Burkholder CA4/3

Filed 1/14/21 Edwards v. Burkholder CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GARY M. EDWARDS, as Trustee, etc. et al., G058049 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01025993) v. OPINION RICHARD BURKHOLDER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert J. Moss, Judge. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice denied. Veatch Carlson, Adam S. Levine, Serena L. Nervez, Richard F. Dieffenbach; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Ernest Slome and Jeffry A. Miller for Defendants and Appellants.

Pistone Law Group, Thomas A. Pistone and Amy A. Mousavi for Plaintiffs and Respondents. * * * This is an appeal from an order denying a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (§ 425.16).) The owners of a house in a planned community decided to demolish their home and build a new one, but construction stalled due to disputes with their homeowners association and next-door neighbors. The owners sued the association and neighbors for interfering with their ability to make improvements to the property, and the neighbors filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting the claims arose from their alleged complaints to the association. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the challenged claims did not arise from protected activity because the neighbors’ complaints to the association were not made in connection with an issue of public interest. After reviewing the record de novo, we conclude the court properly denied the anti-SLAPP motion, but on different grounds than those provided in the court’s order. As we explain below, the neighbors failed to meet their burden to identify any allegations of protected activity and the claims for relief supported by them. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral) [“the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them”].) We therefore affirm.