Olivares v. Pineda (2019)

Citation: Olivares v. Pineda (2019)
Parent Document: Olivares v. Pineda (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-09-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4664364/olivares-v-pineda/ ↗

Full Text

1,007 chars

Eric Meyers and Westpro Realty, Inc. (the attorney defendants) appeal from an
order denying their special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 425.16.)1 They contend the claims asserted against them for wrongful eviction, misuse
of a security deposit (Civ. Code, § 1950.5, subd. (b)(1)), breach of the covenant of quiet
enjoyment, and malicious prosecution all arose out of protected activity because they
were based on acts relating to the prosecution of an unlawful detainer action. The
attorney defendants further contend the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of
prevailing on the merits on any of these claims.
         We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion. The attorney defendants
did not satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute for the claim under Civil Code
section 1950.5, subdivision (b)(1), because the allegation that they misused plaintiffs’
security deposit did not arise out of protected activity. Additionally, the plaintiffs

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text