Santy v. Banafsheha CA2/3
B302388
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Santy, a long‑term tenant in Santa Monica, sued her landlords (Banafsheha et al.) alleging a years‑long campaign of harassment including filing a Petition for Determination of Tenant Not in Occupancy with the Santa Monica Rent Control Board.
- The petition sought a more‑than‑twofold rent increase; Santy alleges it was fraudulent and part of a scheme to trick her into vacating (e.g., inducing her to move furnishings for repainting).
- Defendants moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) to strike the complaint allegations concerning the Rent Control petition (paragraph 10j).
- The trial court denied the motion, reasoning the petition allegations were mere context for a broader pattern of harassment and not the gravamen of Santy’s claim.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the petition allegations constituted protected petitioning activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute (applying Baral and Park) and that the litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b)) barred Santy’s claim based on the petition as a matter of law.
- The appellate court directed the trial court to strike paragraph 10j and award defendants attorney fees and costs; it left open Santy’s ability to amend to allege non‑privileged harassment conduct not based on the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tenant‑harassment allegations based on the Rent Control petition arise from protected petitioning activity | Santy: The petition allegations are incidental/contextual to a broader pattern of non‑protected harassment (the petition is not the gravamen) | Defs: The petition is protected activity under § 425.16(e)(2); anti‑SLAPP may target those allegations | Held: Petitioning is protected; under Baral/Park the court must treat protected allegations as grounds for relief if they supply elements of the claim, so first prong is satisfied |
| Whether Santy can show a probability of prevailing on the tenant harassment claim grounded on the petition | Santy: Did not contest privilege below; argued she could amend to plead around privilege (e.g., malicious prosecution) | Defs: Litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b)) bars liability for statements made in quasi‑judicial Rent Control proceedings | Held: Litigation privilege applies as a matter of law to the petition and supporting declarations; Santy cannot show probability of prevailing on claims based on the petition |
| Whether the trial court correctly refused to strike only the petition‑related allegations in a mixed cause of action | Santy: Protected statements merely provided factual context and cannot be stricken if mixed with unprotected acts | Defs: Baral allows striking discrete allegations of protected activity even within a mixed cause | Held: Trial court misapplied Baral; discrete protected allegations that supply elements of relief may be stricken under anti‑SLAPP |
| Remedy on appeal | Santy: Opposed striking the petition allegations; sought sanctions for frivolous appeal | Defs: Requested reversal and fees/costs | Held: Reversed; directed trial court to strike paragraph 10j and award fees/costs to defendants; sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (court must consider whether protected allegations are alleged as grounds for relief in mixed claims)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (anti‑SLAPP first‑prong requires showing defendant’s alleged conduct falls within § 425.16 categories; courts must analyze claim elements)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (describes Santa Monica Tenant Harassment ordinance and remedies)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (explains "arising from" language and anti‑SLAPP first prong analysis)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (standard for plaintiff to show probability of prevailing on claim under anti‑SLAPP)