D and M General Constructor v. Daneshrad CA2/4

Filed 12/12/22 D and M General Constructor v. Daneshrad CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

D AND M GENERAL B317336 CONSTRUCTOR, INC., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV18885)

JOSEPH DANESHRAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Roozy J. Saviss and Roozy J. Saviss for Defendant and Appellant. Quantum Law Group, Jonathan M. Deer, Steven Morris, and Dina Adham for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Daneshrad (Daneshrad) represented D and M General Constructor, Inc. (D&M) in D and M General Constructor, Inc. v. Eshaghian, et al., Case Number BC609762 (the underlying matter). D&M subsequently sued Daneshrad for legal malpractice based on Daneshrad’s alleged failure to competently represent it in the underlying matter. In response, Daneshrad moved to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.1 The trial court denied the motion in all respects except for striking allegations in two paragraphs of the complaint in support of D&M’s first cause of action for legal malpractice that Daneshrad improperly filed a notice of lien. On appeal, Daneshrad contends the trial court erred by not striking the entire complaint. He argues the acts of filing a motion to withdraw and a notice of lien are protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute, and D&M has not demonstrated a probability of prevailing at trial. We conclude D&M’s claims arise from Daneshrad’s alleged legal malpractice, and not from petitioning activity protected under the anti-SLAPP statute (with the exception of the allegations the trial court struck regarding the notice of lien). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

1 SLAPP is the acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation. All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.