SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT
LYLE HOWRY, Plaintiff, vs. REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN; an individual; MARK J. SHAYATOVICH, an individual; IWONA BENJAMIN, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: 20VECV00727
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE
Dept. U
8:30 a.m.
January 12, 2021
I. BACKGROUND
Lyle Howry (Plaintiff) initiated this action against Reginald Mylabathula Benjamin (Reginald), Mark J. Shayatovich (Shayatovich), Iwona Benjamin (Iwona) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 50 on June 30, 2020. Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint (FAC) alleges claims for: (1) defamation per se; (2) libel per se; (3) slander per se; (4) abuse of process; (5) malicious prosecution; (6) perjury; and (7) fraud and deceit.
On November 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion as to the FAC’s sixth through ninths causes of action. Any arguments made
Hearing Date
January 12, 2021
Type
Defamation (slander/libel) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT
LYLE HOWRY, Plaintiff, vs. REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN; an individual; MARK J. SHAYATOVICH, an individual; IWONA BENJAMIN, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: 20VECV00727
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE
Dept. U
8:30 a.m.
January 12, 2021
I. BACKGROUND
Lyle Howry (Plaintiff) initiated this action against Reginald Mylabathula Benjamin (Reginald), Mark J. Shayatovich (Shayatovich), Iwona Benjamin (Iwona) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 50 on June 30, 2020. Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint (FAC) alleges claims for: (1) defamation per se; (2) libel per se; (3) slander per se; (4) abuse of process; (5) malicious prosecution; (6) perjury; and (7) fraud and deceit.
On November 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion as to the FAC’s sixth through ninths causes of action. Any arguments made