Trapp v. Naiman CA4/2
218 Cal. App. 4th 113
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- This action arises from a nonjudicial foreclosure of 12860 Perris Boulevard, Moreno Valley, later pursued by LaSalle/BofA, and related unlawful detainer actions against Trapp, Sr. and Jr.
- Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint alleging quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, and negligence/abuse of process stemming from UD actions after foreclosure.
- Defendants, including Randall D. Naiman and Naiman Law Group, P.C., moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the UD actions were protected by petition/free-speech rights.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion as to negligence/abuse of process but denied it as to the other claims, relying on Garretson v. Post.
- The court held that the anti-SLAPP analysis did not apply to the nonjudicial foreclosure claims, citing Garretson, and left those claims intact.
- On appeal, the Fourth District reversed, holding all claims against Defendants arose from protected activity (Defendants’ UD representations) and should be stricken, with fees awarded on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the gravamen of all claims arise from protected activity? | Trapp contends some claims relate to foreclosure, not protected activity. | Naiman argues UD actions and defense of LaSalle/BofA are protected activity under anti-SLAPP. | Yes; all claims arise from protected activity and fall within anti-SLAPP. |
| Does the litigation privilege bar merits after anti-SLAPP dismissal? | Plaintiffs argue privilege does not automatically bar pursuit of non-petition claims. | Privilege precludes liability for communications in judicial proceedings and related steps. | Yes; litigation privilege defeats the likelihood of prevailing on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (defines protected activity in anti-SLAPP and broad application)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2000) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (broad interpretation of anti-SLAPP to deter chilling of rights)
- Garretson v. Post, 156 Cal.App.4th 1508 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (nonjudicial foreclosure not per se protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2001) (including mixed protected/unprotected claims, entire action can be stricken)
- Rusheen, supra (Cal. 2006) (protects acts including attorney filings in litigation)
- JSJ Ltd. Partnership v. Mehrban, 205 Cal.App.4th 1512 (Cal. App. 2012) (application of 425.16 to litigation activity)
- Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. App. 2003) (principal thrust/gravamen test for anti-SLAPP)
- Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. App. 2010) (litigation privilege interactions with anti-SLAPP)