Waterhouse Management Corp. v. Allen CA2/6

Filed 1/20/21 Waterhouse Management Corp. v. Allen CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

WATERHOUSE 2d Civil No. B303365 MANAGEMENT CORP. et al., (Super. Ct. No. 17CV05698) (Santa Barbara County) Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

ARTHUR A. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Waterhouse Management Corp. is the property manager of Nomad Village Mobile Home Park (the Park), a 150- space mobile home park in Santa Barbara County. Appellant Lazy Landing MHP, LLC, is the owner of the Park’s long-term ground lease. Appellants filed a complaint against the Park’s homeowners (respondents). Appellants appeal from the trial court’s order striking their fourth cause of action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The fourth cause of action alleged that respondents had maliciously

prosecuted an administrative proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion because appellants had failed to show that the prior administrative proceeding had been terminated in their favor. Such a favorable termination is one of the elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Appellants contend that the trial court erred. We disagree and affirm. The Administrative Proceeding Underlying Appellants’ Fourth Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution Respondents’ PUC complaint alleged that appellants had imposed a rent-controlled rental increase to recover costs incurred in abating electrical code violations at the Park. Respondents claimed that appellants were required “to assume responsibility for payment of all abatement costs” and could not pass the costs through to the homeowners. In support of their claim, respondents cited Health and Safety Code section 18420, subdivision (a)(3), which provides, “The owner or operator of the mobilehome park shall be responsible for the correction of any violations for which a notice of violation has been given pursuant to this subdivision.” Respondents requested that the PUC (1) answer four questions relating to the controversy, and (2) instruct appellants to rescind the rental increase and refund amounts collected pursuant to the increase. In their answer to the complaint, appellants contended that the matter was not properly before the PUC because the validity of the rental increase was being litigated in an arbitration proceeding under the Santa Barbara County Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance (the Ordinance). Appellants argued that the existence of both the PUC and arbitration proceedings “runs the