Daniell
Daniell v. Riverside Partners I, L.P.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Richli, J.
*1295 Opinion
Anand L. Daniell filed this action for malicious prosecution based on an unlawful detainer allegedly filed against him by the previous owner of his apartment complex and by the previous property manager. The defendants in this action include the alleged current owners and current property manager, who Daniell claims are liable as successors in interest.
The current owners and the current property manager brought special motions to strike (SLAPP motions) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the SLAPP Act). The trial court granted the motions. It ruled that Daniell’s cause of action arose out of the moving parties’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, even though they did not prosecute the unlawful detainer. Moreover, it ruled that Daniell had failed to show a probability of prevailing against them, precisely because they did not prosecute the unlawful detainer.
Daniell appeals. He contends that the trial court erred by granting the SLAPP motions, because:
In the published portion of this opinion, we will uphold the rulings granting the SLAPP motions, essentially for the reasons stated by the trial court. First, Daniell’s malicious prosecution claim…