BAHARIAN-MEHR

BAHARIAN-MEHR v. Smith

Bad Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 153·189 Cal. App. 4th 265·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1779
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 15, 2010G043068California3,381 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

This is a dispute between partners in an adult entertainment business. After finding accounting irregularities, plaintiff Akbar Baharian-Mehr sued the corporation which operated the business and his partners E. Glenn Smith (Smith), Leroy Smith (Leroy) and Theron Smith (Theron). Smith then filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. (Subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) The trial court denied the motion, and Smith appeals. As we discuss below, the motion was properly denied because the complaint did not arise from any protected activity on Smith’s part, but from a business dispute between the parties, and the mention of any protected activity was merely incidental. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion. We also affirm the $1,500 attorney fee award against Smith and order Smith to pay Baharian-Mehr’s attorney fees and costs on appeal.

I

FACTS

According to the complaint, in November 2001, Baharian-Mehr and Leroy signed a general partnership contract to establish an adult entertainment business. Baharian-Mehr’s responsibilities under the contract included…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.