Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)

Citation: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4526968/winslett-v-1811-27th-avenue-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,309 chars

3
expenses); and that in return for her departure, Sagi would drop the unlawful detainer
action.4
       Not long after this settlement, Winslett sued Sagi for damages, ultimately alleging 15
causes of action in the operative first amended complaint.5 In response, Sagi filed a special
motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as
the anti-SLAPP statute. By this motion, he sought to strike three of Winslett’s claims—the
eighth (retaliation in violation of § 1942.5), the tenth (violation of the Just Cause
Ordinance), and the fifteenth (retaliatory eviction). Sagi argued that these causes of action
are based on the protected acts of serving a three-day notice and filing an unlawful detainer
action. The motion centered on an argument that the litigation privilege (§ 47, subd. (b))
bars liability for such acts.
       In opposition to Sagi’s anti-SLAPP motion, Winslett argued that none of her claims
arises out of protected activity and that her claim for violation of the Just Cause Ordinance
is not based on Sagi’s litigation activity. Winslett also argued that the litigation privilege
does not bar claims for retaliation in violation of section 1942.5. She supported her
opposition with an evidentiary showing reciting and documenting the facts summarized

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text