California Supreme Court denies Petition for Writ of Mandate which sought to overturn appellate order affirming grant of anti-SLAPP motion in favor of Simmonds & Narita client
The California Supreme Court rejected a petition for writ of mandate by a plaintiff seeking review of an appellate order affirming a ruling granting a special motion to strike the complaint under C.C.P. § 425.16, (the “anti-SLAPP motion”) in favor of Simmonds & Narita’s law firm client. Plaintiff alleged that the filing and recording of an abstract of judgment by the firm improperly created a lien against the plaintiff’s real property. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, struck the plaintiff’s Rosenthal Act and FDCPA claims, and awarded the firm attorneys’ fees and costs.
The plaintiff appealed to the appellate division of Los Angeles Superior Court and, in a published opinion, the appellate court affirmed. The court found the claims arose from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute and the plaintiff had no probability of prevailing on the merits. The court agreed that, as a matter of law, the abstract only attached to real property in Los Angeles County in which the judgment-debtor had an ownership interest. The plaintiff admitted the judgment-debtor did not have an ownership interest in her property and, therefore, there was no lien as a matter of law.
In plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate to the California Supreme Court, plaintiff argued that the appellate court’s decision conflicted with California appellate authority on the applicability of the litigation privilege to the Rosenthal Act. In response, the firm explained that no such conflict existed, and the California Supreme Court denied the petition.