30-14-702048

Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike

DENY the motion.

Defendant SHERRY SILVESTRI fails to carry her initial burden to make a prima facie showing that Plaintiff FARHEAP SOLUTIONS INC.’s Original Complaint filed on 1/30/14 infringes on an act in furtherance of her free speech rights or right to petition. (CCP § 425.16 (e).)

The burden does not shift to Plaintiff to establish a “probability” that it will prevail on its claims. (CCP § 425.16 (b); Dixon v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 744; Beilenson v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 950‑953.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues correctly that the court is not permitted to speculate about Plaintiff’s ulterior motives for filing suit. Based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the lawsuit does not arise from or infringe upon protected activity.

“It is indisputably true, as the trial court observed, that City’s action was filed shortly after Owners filed their claim in federal court. But the mere fact an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean it arose from that activity. The anti-SLAPP statute cannot be read to mean that ‘any claim asserted in an action which arguably was filed in retaliation for the exercise of speech or petition rights falls under section 425.16, whether or not the claim is based on conduct in exercise of those rights.’” (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 76-77, citing ComputerXpress Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.)

Plaintiff’s Objections to Evidence

The court OVERRULES Objections 1-7 to the Rau Declaration.

The court OVERRULES objections 1-3 to the Silvestri Declaration.

Opposition, Reply, Objections to Evidence in Support Thereof

Because Defendant has failed to carry her initial burden, the court need not consider the Opposition, the Reply, or any objections to evidence offered in support thereof.

Requests for Sanctions

Defendant’s request for $12,060 in monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for $11,573.50 in monetary sanctions is GRANTED. The court finds that the special motion to strike was frivolous because “any reasonable attorney would agree such motion is totally devoid of merit.” (Baharian-Mehr v. Smith, (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 265, 275; CCP 426.16 (c)(1).)