Mitchell v. Irigoyen CA5

Filed 3/27/13 Mitchell v. Irigoyen CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DANIEL L. MITCHELL et al., F064239 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. CV274320) v.

JEAN MICHAEL IRIGOYEN et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge. J.M. Irigoyen Law Corporation and J.M. Irigoyen for Defendants and Appellants. Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, Inc., Timothy S. McKinley and Alfred Randal Hernandez for Plaintiffs and Respondents. -ooOoo- Appellants, Jean Michael Irigoyen (Irigoyen) and his law corporation, challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to strike the breach of contract, specific

performance, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress action filed by respondents, Daniel L. Mitchell and Karen L. Mitchell, as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 425.16. According to appellants, respondents’ complaint arose out of a demand letter that appellants wrote to respondents. In this letter appellants threatened to file an unlawful detainer action. Appellants argue that, because threatening litigation is a protected activity, their motion to strike should have been granted. The trial court correctly denied appellants’ motion to strike. Appellants’ demand letter may have triggered respondents’ complaint and may be evidence in support of the complaint, but it was not the cause of respondents’ complaint. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed. BACKGROUND In 2002, respondents rented a mobile home on a small parcel of property located in Weldon from Victor Little (Victor2). Respondents initially paid $325 per month as rent. In March 2007, at the suggestion of Victor’s mother, Nina Little (Nina), respondents entered into a land sale contract to purchase this property from Victor for $28,000. Respondents were to pay 10 percent down and $400 per month. The parties executed a written contract to that effect and respondents paid Victor $2,800 as the 10 percent down payment. However, respondents did not receive a copy of this contract. In May 2008, at respondents’ insistence, Victor drafted a second written land sale contract. This contract stated that the selling price was $28,000 and that respondents owed Victor a balance of $22,150. The contract further provided that respondents were