Moriarty v. Laramar Management CA1/2
168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Moriarty sued multiple defendants including Laramar entities for 11 causes of action relating to housing conditions and eviction.
- Moriarty alleged prolonged water intrusion, mold/airborne contaminants, and failure to repair, resulting in uninhabitable premises.
- Moriarty vacated in 2010 for repairs; in 2011 defendants allegedly retained possession and refused to return it.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants’ conduct breached the warranty of habitability and deprived him of quiet enjoyment.
- Laramar moved to strike under CCP § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) arguing Moriarty’s suit hinged on eviction-related protected activity; the trial court denied the motion.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Moriarty’s lawsuit is not based on protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moriarty’s complaint is based on protected SLAPP activity | Moriarty argues the claims arise from housing conditions, not eviction conduct. | Laramar contends the suit centers on unlawful detainer and eviction as protected activity. | Not based on protected activity; anti-SLAPP fails at step one. |
| Whether eviction-related conduct is the gravamen of Moriarty’s claims | Moriarty maintains eviction is the predicate, but not the sole basis. | Laramar asserts the complaint rests on protected petitioning activity from the eviction. | Gravamen not rooted in protected activity; eviction not the basis. |
| Whether the anti-SLAPP defense applies to the Rent Ordinance claims | Moriarty argues the ordinance claims arise from general housing duties, not eviction. | Laramar contends the claims derive from the eviction action. | Not applicable; the action does not arise from protected activity; survives anti-SLAPP analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Association, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizes protected activity in eviction context but not dispositive here)
- Birkner v. Lam, 156 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (protects activity but not sole basis for action)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2003) (critical question is whether action is based on protected activity)
- Clark v. Mazgani, 170 Cal.App.4th 1281 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (eviction-based claims may not arise from protected activity when eviction is not the basis)
- Delois v. Barrett Block Partners, 177 Cal.App.4th 940 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses Ellis Act and whether notices trigger the action as basis)
- Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (landlord-tenant notices not necessarily basis for anti-SLAPP)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (post-activity causation principle in anti-SLAPP)
- Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (acts must be based on protected speech or petitioning)