Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism CA4/3
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 70
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ground Lease (1963) and Sublease (2004) between Cerullo and NHOM; NHOM holds improvements via quitclaim deed; Maag Trust loaned $3M to NHOM with deeds of trust securing the loan and the Sublease; Plaza del Sol Note of $1.15M secured by a second deed of trust; Assignment for Collection (April 2010) obligated Maag Trust to make payments and Cerullo/Plaza del Sol to refrain from default; D’Alessio/VMG allegedly pressured termination of the Sublease; Cerullo served a 30-day notice to cure or quit (April 22 and May 26, 2011 notices) and then NHOM was served with a three-day notice to quit; Copenbarger filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contract; Cerullo then pursued an unlawful detainer against NHOM; anti-SLAPP motion to strike granted, later reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the complaint arise from protected activity under 425.16? | Complaint based on lease interpretation, not notices. | Notices and unlawful detainer are protected. | No; not arising from protected activity. |
| Was the declaratory relief action tied to the notices or the underlying lease dispute? | Arises from interpreting Sublease/Ground Lease terms. | Arises from notices and eviction actions. | Arises from underlying lease dispute, not notices. |
| Did the breach of contract claim arise from protected activity? | Breaches independent of notices. | Based on notice provisions intertwined with eviction. | Arises from non-protected conduct. |
| Did the intentional interference with contract claim arise from protected activity? | Based on alleged inducement by Artz/D’Alessio/VMG. | Arises from eviction-related acts. | Not arising from protected activity. |
| Were Feldman and Birkner controlling distinctions applicable? | Distinguish as Clark/Marlin/DFEH Oviedo line of cases. | Feldman/Birkner supportive of anti-SLAPP. | Distinguishable; case aligns with Clark/Marlin/DFEH/Oviedo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Mazgani, 170 Cal.App.4th 1281 (2009) (unlawful detainer triggers protection but not merge with underlying disputes)
- Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 154 (2007) (Ellis Act removal not protected activity; focus on underlying dispute)
- Birkner v. Lam, 156 Cal.App.4th 275 (2007) (termination notices may be protected, but depends on basis of suit)
- Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467 (2008) (anti-SLAPP as to most claims; may exclude negligent misrepresentation)
- Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal.App.4th 97 (2012) (rent-control/eviction dispute not based on protected activity)
- DFEH v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273 (2007) (claims not about removal process but about discrimination)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (test for protected activity under 425.16)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (2007) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; de novo review on appeal)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (threshold showing of protected activity required)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) (de novo review standard for anti-SLAPP orders)