Anais Enterprises v. CREF3 Warner Owner, LLC CA4/3
G063526
Cal. Ct. App.May 19, 2025Background
- Anais Enterprises leased commercial property and was in dispute with landlord CREF3 Warner Owner about back rent and lease terms after a change in property ownership.
- In June 2022, CREF3 served Anais a three-day notice to pay back rent or forfeit the property; Anais tendered a check with protest language and asserted legal liabilities if the check was cashed.
- CREF3, faced with conditional language on Anais's check and threatening legal consequences, opted not to deposit the check and instead filed an unlawful detainer (eviction) action against Anais.
- The unlawful detainer action was dismissed after a denial of summary judgment, and Anais subsequently sued CREF3 and its attorneys for malicious prosecution.
- Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the malicious prosecution claim; the trial court denied the motion, finding Anais had shown a probability of success.
- Defendants appealed, and the appellate court addressed whether the prior unlawful detainer action was supported by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protected Activity under Anti-SLAPP | Defendants' acts not protected | Filing UD action is protected petitioning activity | Filing was protected activity |
| Probability of Prevailing (Anti-SLAPP) | Had sufficient probability of success on malicious prosecution | UD action had probable cause; no probability of success for Anais | Anais did not show sufficient probability |
| Probable Cause for UD Action | Defendants lacked probable cause to reject check; acted with malice | Conditional language did not negate probable cause; action was reasonably tenable | UD action based on probable cause |
| Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal | Defendants' appeal was frivolous | Appeal was warranted, not frivolous | Sanctions motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989) (objective reasonableness standard for probable cause in malicious prosecution)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990) (colorable claim defeats malicious prosecution; must lack probable cause)
- Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 3 Cal.5th 767 (Cal. 2017) (defines probable cause for malicious prosecution standards)
- Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc., 185 Cal.App.4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (lease terms can alter UD notice procedures)