93 Cal.App.5th 1099
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Plaintiffs Park and Nguyen obtained a money judgment against Kelly and Shariar Nazari and, after enforcement, challenged subsequent transfers of the truck stop and a Chatsworth residence and sought declaratory relief about access to state cleanup funds.
- After the jury verdict but before entry of judgment, defense counsel David Torres‑Siegrist recorded promissory‑note liens (secured by deeds of trust) against the truck stop and the residence; plaintiffs allege the notes were fraudulent and that a third party, Oganesyan, acted as a strawman to effect a sham foreclosure restoring the Nazaris’ title.
- Plaintiffs sued for fraudulent transfer, quiet title, and declaratory relief (including that Fund assistance runs with the land); plaintiffs allege separate wrongdoing by Shariar interfering with environmental remediation funding.
- The trial court earlier granted Torres‑Siegrist’s anti‑SLAPP motion as to claims against him, concluding those claims arose from protected litigation‑related activity and plaintiffs lacked minimal merit on the merits.
- The Nazaris then moved under the anti‑SLAPP statute to strike the entire complaint. The trial court denied that motion because the Nazaris (1) asked to strike the whole complaint but failed to identify the specific allegations/claims that rested on protected activity and (2) the complaint included at least one claim that did not arise from protected activity (e.g., interference with obtaining Fund assistance).
- The Nazaris argued collateral estoppel based on the Torres‑Siegrist ruling; the court rejected that contention because the claims and allegations against the Nazaris were not identical to those adjudicated as to Torres‑Siegrist.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the Nazaris’ anti‑SLAPP motion that sought to strike the entire complaint | Park/Nguyen: The court correctly denied because Nazaris failed to meet the moving‑party burden and the complaint contains at least one unprotected claim | Nazari: Entire complaint arises from litigation‑related protected activity; court should strike whole complaint | Held: Denial affirmed — movant must identify specific allegations/claims that rest on protected activity; Nazaris failed that burden and complaint includes unprotected claims |
| Whether the trial court was required to parse and strike only protected allegations despite the Nazaris seeking to dismiss the entire complaint | Park/Nguyen: Court permissibly declined to parse where movant did not identify individual protected allegations | Nazari: Court should parse and strike protected parts even if movant asked to dismiss whole complaint | Held: Trial court need not undertake claim‑by‑claim parsing when movant seeks wholesale dismissal but fails to identify protected allegations; movant bears that burden per Baral/Bonni |
| Whether collateral estoppel from the Torres‑Siegrist anti‑SLAPP order required granting the Nazaris’ motion | Park/Nguyen: Prior ruling did not decide identical issues as to the Nazaris because the claims differ | Nazari: Earlier order granting Torres‑Siegrist’s anti‑SLAPP motion should preclude re‑litigation and compel same result | Held: No preclusion — issues were not identical and the claims against the Nazaris were materially different |
| Whether Bonni/Baral/Wilson require a movant to identify the protected acts supporting each challenged claim when moving to strike | Park/Nguyen: These precedents support requiring the movant to identify acts and claims; otherwise plaintiffs would be forced to parse pleadings | Nazari: Favored a gravamen/whole‑cause approach (asked court to find gravamen arises from protected speech) | Held: Court followed Baral/Bonni/Wilson — moving party must identify the activity each challenged claim rests on; gravamen analysis is disfavored when movant fails to satisfy burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (2021) (moving party must identify acts each challenged claim rests on; failure means movant does not meet first‑step burden)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (anti‑SLAPP may attack parts of a claim; movant bears burden to identify protected allegations and linked claims)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (2019) (moving defendant must identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and show it is protected)
- Balla v. Hall, 59 Cal.App.5th 652 (2021) (discusses whether courts must parse complaints even when movant frames motion as seeking dismissal of entire complaint; court here disagrees to the extent Balla requires parsing when movant fails to meet its burden)
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (2015) (sets the standard for issue preclusion/collateral estoppel)