1
satisfied their burden on the second prong of the anti-SLAPP statute by showing minimal
merit on their remaining claims. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We take the following facts from the operative first amended complaint and the
parties’ evidence on the anti-SLAPP motion.
In December 2015, Cinthya Olivares, Martin Rizo, and Allen, Jonathan and
Fabian Sanchez (collectively plaintiffs) entered into an oral agreement with Rolando
Pineda to lease a home that he owned. The tenancy was month-to-month, and the
monthly rent was $2,000. At the start of the tenancy, plaintiffs paid Pineda a $2,000
security deposit.
A. The Unlawful Detainer Action
The following events all occurred in 2017. In July, Pineda retained the attorney
defendants to begin eviction proceedings against plaintiffs. On July 24, plaintiffs were
served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit, claiming $2,750 in rent was due ($750
for June 2017 and $2,000 for July 2017), and threatening legal action if plaintiffs did not
timely pay or give up possession of the premises (the July notice). According to
plaintiffs, however, there was no rent past due, as Pineda had overcharged them $3,350
during their tenancy. Nevertheless, in order to avoid eviction, Olivares tendered a
cashier’s check on July 27, in the amount of $2,000, but the tender was rejected as
insufficient.
On July 28, Pineda and the attorney defendants (collectively, defendants) filed an
unlawful detainer action against Olivares. During the course of discovery, Pineda
produced a rent ledger showing that as of July 1, the amount of rent past due was actually
$1,750, not $2,750.2 The rent ledger also showed that on July 1, plaintiffs’ $2,000
security deposit had been applied to their payment of rent without their knowledge or
consent.