Alfaro

Filed 8/4/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ALMA ALFARO et al., 2d Civil No. B313842 (Super. Ct. No. 17CV02185) Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

WATERHOUSE

MANAGEMENT CORP. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

This case illustrates the principle that an anti-SLAPP motion lies only as to “allegations of protected activity that are asserted as grounds for relief.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 395 (Baral).) Here, the targeted cause of action mentions protected activity – the filing of a malicious prosecution action – but this activity is not asserted as a ground for relief. The grounds for relief are based on the violation of a statute – Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (d). The trial court properly denied appellants’ anti-SLAPP motion and did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for making a frivolous motion. Appellant Waterhouse Management Corp. is the property manager of Nomad Village Mobile Home Park (the Park), a 150- space mobile home park in Santa Barbara. Appellant Lazy Landing MHP, LLC, owns the long-term…