Ortiz

Ortiz v. Eisler CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 2022B303780California3,048 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kim, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Yazmin Ortiz appeals from an order granting, in part, a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.1 We reverse, in part, as to the 12th cause of action to the extent it concerns activity not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. We otherwise affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Unlawful Detainer Action

In March 1995, plaintiff entered into a rental agreement with defendant Rudy Eisler for a unit within an apartment building located in Santa Monica (the property). The property was owned by defendants Stephen B. Eisler and Theresa A. Eisler as trustees of the Eisler Family 2000 Living Trust, and Rudy Eisler and Wendy Lou Eisler as trustees of the Eisler Living Trust (the Eislers). In May 2015, the Eislers filed an unlawful detainer action (the unlawful detainer action) against plaintiff for failure to pay rent. In August 2015, the Eislers filed the second amended complaint in the unlawful detainer action. They alleged that plaintiff was served with a three-day notice to

Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. “A ‘SLAPP’ is a ‘“strategic lawsuit…

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.