4
In the fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, plaintiffs
incorporate the prior paragraphs of the first amended complaint and allege that “[b]y the
acts and omissions described above,” defendants deprived them of the full and beneficial
use of the leased premises and disturbed their peaceful possession.
Finally, in the sixth cause of action for malicious prosecution, plaintiffs allege that
defendants, maliciously and without probable cause, filed and continued to prosecute the
unlawful detainer action even though they knew that no rent was past due, and that
plaintiffs had been overcharged $3,350 during their tenancy. Plaintiffs allege the
unlawful detainer action terminated in their favor, as defendants voluntarily dismissed it
without prejudice and without payment of any consideration because they knew they
could not prevail.
C. The Anti-SLAPP Motion
The attorney defendants filed a special motion to strike these claims, in which
defendant Pineda joined. They argued the claims arose from protected activity because
they were based on the July 28 unlawful detainer action and were requisite precursors to
it. They further argued plaintiffs could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the
merits.
As to the claim for malicious prosecution, defendants argued the voluntary
dismissal of the unlawful detainer was not a termination on the merits in plaintiffs’ favor.
To the contrary, they say, after additional records were obtained from plaintiffs and from
Pineda’s bank, Pineda realized that he had understated the amount of rent owed in the
July notice, which is not fatal to an eviction action. Thus, Pineda elected to dismiss the
action and, on the same day, served plaintiffs with the updated October notice and revised
ledger showing $3,250 owing as of July 1, 2017 (and $9,250 overall). The attorney
defendants argued they had probable cause to file and continue prosecuting the unlawful
detainer because they were entitled to rely on the information provided by their client,
who executed the three-day notices under penalty of perjury, and probable cause was also
shown when Olivares tendered a partial rent payment within the July notice period. In
his supporting declaration, Meyers stated that all relevant times, he believed Pineda’s