Gentino v. Yaghoobia CA2/3

Filed 6/26/24 Gentino v. Yaghoobia CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ROBERT GENTINO, B324932

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV11122) v.

BIZHAN YAGHOOBIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gail Killefer, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser and Frank A. Weiser for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Bizhan Yaghoobia appeals from a trial court order denying his special motion to strike the claims against him in a complaint filed by Robert Gentino, Trustee of the BN Family Trust Dated June 5, 2000. We affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, Gentino filed a lawsuit against Yaghoobia, Bob Termechi, and several Doe defendants. The action concerned real property in Long Beach, California. Gentino’s complaint asserted a claim against Yaghoobia for conversion, sought a partition sale of the property, and demanded an accounting of the property’s income and expenses. In 2021, the trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice after concluding Gentino failed to demonstrate an ownership interest in the property. In April 2022, Gentino filed a second lawsuit against Yaghoobia, Termechi, and Doe defendants. The lawsuit again concerned the Long Beach property and asserted claims against Yaghoobia for partition of the property; breach of constructive trust, alleging Yaghoobia failed to properly distribute income from the property; and an accounting of the property’s income and expenses. Yaghoobia filed a special motion to strike the claims against him under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 He argued the claims arise from protected petitioning activity because they are identical to claims from the first lawsuit. Yaghoobia also contended Gentino was estopped from taking positions inconsistent with those he took in the earlier lawsuit. Gentino opposed the motion, arguing the claims against