Daniell v. Riverside Partners I, L.P.
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Daniell sued Riverside Partners I, L.P., Kayne Anderson Real Estate Partners I, and Campus Apartments, L.L.C. for malicious prosecution based on an unlawful detainer filed by GrandMarc and College Park.
- In 2005 Daniell leased a unit in a complex then owned by GrandMarc and managed by College Park.
- In 2007 GrandMarc (and College Park) filed an unlawful detainer against Daniell; it was dismissed voluntarily, with alleged admissions the claim was meritless.
- In 2008 Riverside purchased the complex (assuming GrandMarc’s loan); Kayne is alleged to be a co-owner and the respondents are alleged successors in interest to GrandMarc/College Park.
- In 2010 Riverside and Kayne filed a SLAPP motion; the trial court granted, ruling the claim arose from protected activity and that there was no probability of prevailing against the movants.
- Campus later filed its own SLAPP motion (second SLAPP); the trial court granted it as well; the default was vacated for Campus, and the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the malicious prosecution claim arise from protected activity? | Daniell argues the claim does not arise from protected activity by the successors in interest. | Riverside, Kayne, and Campus contend the claim does arise from protected activity because of involvement in petition/speech related to the underlying matter. | Yes; the claim arises from protected activity. |
| Can successors in interest invoke the SLAPP Act against a predecessor’s actions? | Daniell argues successors should be liable and not shielded by lack of direct prosecution. | Defendants argue successors are not liable unless statutory exceptions apply and they did not prosecute the underlying UD. | Yes; successors can invoke the SLAPP Act; Daniell failed to show probability against them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (two-step SLAPP analysis; de novo review)
- Daniels v. Robbins, 182 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. App. 2010) (malicious prosecution as protected activity)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (attorney's protected communicative conduct)
- Shekhter v. Financial Indemnity Co., 89 Cal.App.4th 141 (Cal. App. 2001) (attorney as speaker may be protected)
- Ludwig v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 8 (Cal. App. 1995) (SLAPP can be invoked by one supporting third party's speech)
- Ray v. Alad Corp., 19 Cal.3d 22 (Cal. 1977) (four exceptions to successor liability)
- Beatrice Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 6 Cal.4th 767 (Cal. 1993) (continuity and liability implications for successors)
- Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLP v. Fotouhi, 197 Cal.App.4th 1132 (Cal. App. 2011) (case on successor liability context in SLAPP mix)
- Fisher v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust, 95 Cal.App.4th 1182 (Cal. App. 2002) (general principle on successor liability)