Gabriel

Filed 4/12/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CLARITY CO. CONSULTING, 2d Civil No. B311823 LLC, (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- 00547889-CU-BC-VTA) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

LARRY GABRIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal illustrates an attorney’s misuse of the anti- SLAPP statute. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16.)1 “[H]owever efficacious the anti-SLAPP procedure may be in the right case, it can be badly abused in the wrong one, resulting in substantial cost—and prejudicial delay.” (Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 977, 981.) This is the wrong case. Appellant was given more than adequate notice in the trial court that his anti- SLAPP motion was not designed for this contractual dispute. He has been given the same notice on appeal. The warnings should have given him pause. They did not.

All statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure. What we said over twenty years ago is as true today as it was then: “[w]e . . . observe that trial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals, such as appellant [and…