Anti-Slapp Motion Apparently Viewed As A Tactic To Delay Plaintiff’s Case.

Plaintiff is a tenant in a building and alleges significant maintenance and repair issues, including airborne contaminants. According to the complaint, defendants had plaintiff evicted to perform significant repairs, but did no repairs, and would not permit plaintiff to take possession again. So, plaintiff brought an action for breach of warranty of habitability and several other causes of action. The essence of defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion is that plaintiff’s complaint was premised in material part upon defendant’s pursuit of eviction proceedings and the claims are barred under the litigation privilege [Civil Code section 47,]. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding the complaint was not based upon protected activity. The first paragraph of the opinion reveals much about the appellate court’s view of the situation: “Another appeal in an anti-SLAPP case. Another appeal by a defendant whose anti-SLAPP motion failed below. Another appeal that, assuming it has no merit, will result in an inordinate delay of the plaintiff’s case and cause him to incur more unnecessary attorney fees. (See, Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 977, 1002-1003, [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835, 854-855].) And no merit it has. We thus affirm, concluding, as did the trial court, that plaintiff’s lawsuit is not based on protected activity.” (Moriarty v. Laramar Management Corporation  (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 2; February 26, 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 125, [168 Cal.Rptr.3d 461].)