The court’s intro on this one pretty much sums it up:
Another appeal in an anti-SLAPP case. Another appeal by a defendant whose Anti-SLAPP motion failed below. Another appeal that, assuming it has no merit, will result in an inordinate delay of the plaintiff’s case and cause him to incur more unnecessary attorney fees. [cite] And no merit it has.So to be brief, plaintiff sued his landlord for damages on a number of theories related to the landlord’s failure to repair his apartment. The landlord had previously won by default in a unlawful detainer case against the plaintiff, and argued in a SLAPP motion that this case “arose from” the filing of the UD action. But a clearly peeved Justice Richman agrees with the trial court that that’s not the case. While this case might have been motivated by the plaintiff’s eviction, it is based on (and thus arises from) the defendant’s alleged failure to maintain the apartment, not the unlawful detainer filing. Consequently, as dictated by well-settled law that is explained in detail as the court completely dismantles defendant’s arguments, plaintiff’s suit is not a SLAPP and the motion was properly denied.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment