Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp. (2014)

Citation: Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp. (2014)
Parent Document: Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp. (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-02-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654777/moriarty-v-laramar-mgmt-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,461 chars

13
notice, the prosecution of the Unlawful Detainer Action, and the eviction, which resulted
in Plaintiff’s permanent loss of possession of the unit.” Simply saying something does
not make it so. Laramar’s strained reading of Moriarty’s complaint is, simply,
inaccurate.
       Laramar places heavy reliance on Wallace, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th 1169, a case it
cites four times in its opening brief, and which it describes in its reply as “on point.” The
reliance is misplaced. Wallace is distinguishable. To begin with, the anti-SLAPP motion
in Wallace was directed at only two of 13 causes of action (id. at p. 1178), not the entire
complaint as is Laramar’s motion here. And the court found that the acts on which the
challenged causes of action were “based” were protected activity. Beyond that, we find
Wallace unpersuasive, especially as it does not even address Delois, supra,
177 Cal.App.4th 940, and dismisses Clark in conclusory fashion in a footnote. (Wallace,
supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1192, fn. 10.)2
       In sum, Laramar fails to demonstrate that Moriarty’s cause of action for violation
of section 37.9 of the San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37 (or any other cause
of action) is based in whole or in part on an unlawful detainer default suit that is nowhere
referenced in the complaint. Indeed, Laramar does not show that the unlawful detainer
suit was even “incidental” to Moriarty’s claims here. But even assuming it did, it would

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text