Tentative Ruling
Bradford Douglass v. Babak Ezhari et al., Case No. 19STCV21771
Hearing Date February 4, 2021
Defendants Block & Rahsepar’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (UNOPPOSED)
Plaintiff sued landlord defendant Jorquez, alleging habitability issues. In October 2018, defendant Jorquez sold the property to defendant Ezhari Trust; plaintiff alleges Ezhari pressured him to vacate. The Ezhari defendants filed a forcible detainer action, in which plaintiff prevailed. Defendants Dennis P. Block & Associates and Hasti Rahsepar, who represented Ezhari in the forcible detainer litigation, move to strike all allegations against them in the second amended complaint (anti-SLAPP).
Courts resolving an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16 must follow a two-step process. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733. In the first step (“prong one”), the court determines whether the conduct underlying the plaintiff’s cause of action arises from defendant’s constitutional rights of
Hearing Date
February 04, 2021
Type
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Tentative Ruling
Bradford Douglass v. Babak Ezhari et al., Case No. 19STCV21771
Hearing Date February 4, 2021
Defendants Block & Rahsepar’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (UNOPPOSED)
Plaintiff sued landlord defendant Jorquez, alleging habitability issues. In October 2018, defendant Jorquez sold the property to defendant Ezhari Trust; plaintiff alleges Ezhari pressured him to vacate. The Ezhari defendants filed a forcible detainer action, in which plaintiff prevailed. Defendants Dennis P. Block & Associates and Hasti Rahsepar, who represented Ezhari in the forcible detainer litigation, move to strike all allegations against them in the second amended complaint (anti-SLAPP).
Courts resolving an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16 must follow a two-step process. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733. In the first step (“prong one”), the court determines whether the conduct underlying the plaintiff’s cause of action arises from defendant’s constitutional rights of