Anti-SLAPP "protected activities" include filing of unlawful detainer actions


In Trapp v. Naiman, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District decided an interesting real property case. The case began as a non-judicial foreclosure and unlawful detainer matter.  The case then morphed into claims of abuse of process against the attorney who initiated the real property litigation.

This action arose out of a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding brought by LaSalle Bank against Benni G. Trapp. Attorney Randall Naiman was retained by LaSalle Bank. Naiman served three separate 3/60-days notices to vacate on Trapp, followed by three separate unlawful detainers actions, which were eventually dismissed.

Trapp then filed suit against Naiman, alleging causes of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence and abuse of process. Trapp alleged that Naiman abused the court process by filing the unlawful detainer actions. In response, Naiman filed an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming that the unlawful detainer actions were “protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion as to the negligence and abuse of process claims, but denied relief as to other claims.

The Court of Appeal noted that Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP statute, was enacted to protect valid exercise of constitutional rights such as the right of petition or free speech. In Garretson v. Post, the Court held that the “act of noticing a non-judicial foreclosure does not quality as a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.”

Here, the Appellate Court noted that Trapp’s primary assertion was that Naiman wrongfully foreclosed on the subject property. However, Trapp acknowledged that Naiman was not directly involved in the non-judicial foreclosure proceeding. The Court found that Trapp attempted to circumvent the anti-SLAPP statute by merging those proceedings to Naiman’s representation of their clients in the unlawful detainer actions. The court noted that those actions, are proper and protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in denying Naiman’s anti-SLAPP motion.

Brian Fu also contributed to this article.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.