Newport Harbor offices & Marina, LLC vs. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

Motion for SLAPP

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 7, 2016

~N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Steven W. Blake, Esq., SBN 235502 Andrew E. Hall, Esq., SBN 257547 Daniel Watts, Esq. SBN 277861 GALUPPO & BLAKE A Professional Law Corporation 2792 Gateway Road, Suite 102 Carlsbad, California 92009 Phone: (760) 431-4575 Fax: (760) 431-4579 Attorneys for Defendants MCWE, PLAZA DEL SOL, WILLIAM PACKARD, AND ROGER ARTZ ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange T1AT2016 at 11:05:00 A Clerk of the Superior Court By Trinity Palabrica,Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NEWPORT HARBOR OFFICES & MARINA, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiff, V. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM, a California corporation; PLAZA DEL SOL REAL ESTATE TRUST, a business organization of form unknown; ROGER ARTZ, an individual; WILLIAM PACKARD, an individual; DENNIS D’ALESSIO, an individual; VERTICAL MEDIA GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company, Darryl J. Paul, Esq., a licensed California attorney; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: 30-2016-00880121-CU-NP-CJC DEFENDANT ROGER ARTZ’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP §425.16 Hearing Date: March 10, 2017 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. RESERVATION No: 72484184 Judge: Dept.: Filed Trial: Hon. James J. Di Cesare C-16 October 7, 2016 None Set TO PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 10, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C16 of the above-entitled Court, located at 700 W. Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Defendant Artz’s Notice of Motion and Special anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike ~N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Roger Artz (“Artz” or “Defendant”) will, and hereby does, move to strike the complaint filed by Plaintiff NEWPORT HARBOR OFFICES & MARINA (“NHOM”). In addition, Defendant separately moves to strike the first cause of action for malicious prosecution, because it arises from the exercise of the right to petition, is not supported by evidence, is legally and factually invalid, does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, and is uncertain, vague, and ambiguous. CCP §§425.16; 430.10(e)-(f). In the alternative, Defendant asks the Court to strike individual allegations within the complaint which arise from the right of petition, including the following specific paragraphs of the complaint: 1926 (“the MAAG TRUST commenced an action against MCNAUGHTON....), 33 (“D. D’ALESSIO proposed that MCWE would...commence an unlawful detainer action against NHO&M....), 34 (“an unlawful detainer action would be filed and prosecuted against NHO&M...PAUL...would become the attorney of record for MCWE with respect to the unlawful detainer action against NHO&M?”), 35 (“[defendants] entered into a written contract...for the purpose of giving D’ALESSIO the authority to file and prosecute an unlawful detainer action against NHO&M”), Exhibit 16 (contract giving authority to file unlawful detainer action), 39 (modifying contract to allow Newport Harbor Ventures to manage property and possibly file unlawful detainer), 40 (describing service of notice predicate to filing unlawful detainer), 41 (same), 42 (describing litigation strategy meeting held to discuss strategy for unlawful detainer), Exhibit 19 (letter describing litigation strategy meeting), 43 (“[defendants]...told Mr. Jakosky that an unlawful detainer action would be filed against NHO&M...ARTZ and D. D’ALESSIO knew that the filing and prosecution of an unlawful detainer action against NHO&M was improper...D’ALESSIO told Mr. Jakosky that the basis of the unlawful detainer complaint would be a failure of NHO&M to repair and maintain’), 49 (describing service of notice predicate to filing unlawful detainer), Exhibit 24 (same notice), 50 (describing filing of unlawful detainer), Exhibit 25 (unlawful detainer complaint), 54 (describing notice predicate to filing unlawful detainer), 55 (describing unlawful detainer), 57 (describing filing of unlawful detainer), 59 (describing unlawful detainer), 61 (describing filing of unlawful detainer), 62 (describing filing of first amended complaint for unlawful detainer and verification of FAC), Exhibit 26 (FAC for unlawful detainer), 63 (describing filing of FAC), 64 (describing service of FAC), 65 (describing service of 60- 2- Artz’s Notice of Motion and Special anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike ~N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 day notice), 66 (same), 67 (describing FAC), 69 (describing FAC), 73 (describing service of notices predicate to unlawful detainer), Exhibit 27 (same), 74 (describing service of notice predicate to unlawful detainer), Exhibit 28 (same), 75 (describing notice predicate to unlawful detainer), Exhibit 29 (same), 77 (failure to dismiss unlawful detainer), 79 (filing another complaint in the unlawful detainer), Exhibit 30 (same), 80 (describing new complaint in unlawful detainer), 81 (describing service of notices predicate to filing unlawful detainer), 82 (describing filing of unlawful detainer), 84 (describing unlawful detainer complaint), 85 (describing second amended complaint for unlawful detainer), 86 (describing service of notices predicate to unlawful detainer), 88 (describing service of notice to cure), Exhibit 31 (notice to cure), 89 (describing SAC), 90 (same), 91 (same), 92 (same), 94 (same), 95 (same), 96 (same), 97 (describing notice to cure), 98 (describing notice to cure), 99 (describing settlement negotiations and statements from parties’ counsel during settlement negotiations), 100 (describing settlement negotiations), 101 (describing execution of settlement agreement), 102 (describing intent of settlement agreement), 103 (same), 104 (“MCWE refused to file a dismissal of the UD ACTION pursuant to the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.”), 105 (rescission of settlement agreement), Exhibit 33 (same), 106 (describing filing of lawsuit to enforce settlement agreement (“Maag Lawsuit”), 107 (describing motion to relieve counsel in unlawful detainer), 108 (describing consolidation of actions), 110 (describing dismissal of unlawful detainer), 111 (describing filing motion for relief from judgment), 112 (describing filing cross-complaint for rescission in Maag Lawsuit), 113 (describing claims in Maag Lawsuit), 114 (describing “entire purpose” of MCWE filing a motion for relief from judgment), 115 (describing “bad faith” purpose of MCWE filing motion for relief from judgment), 116 (describing settlement communications between counsel for MCWE and third parties), 117 (describing trial in Maag Lawsuit), 120 (“MCWE finally filed a Request for Dismissal of the UD ACTION but without prejudice.”), Exhibit 34 (request for dismissal of unlawful detainer), 122 (“NHO&M obtained favorable termination of the UD ACTION”), 123 (describing unlawful detainer), 124 (describing “aforementioned acts”). Defendant also notifies Plaintiff that he requests in this motion his attorney’s fees and costs, which are mandatory to a prevailing movant under the anti-SLAPP statute. CCP §425.16(c)(1). 3- Artz’s Notice of Motion and Special anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike c o NN Oo Wn BA W N el 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, et. seq., and will be based on this Notice and Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, attached Declarations, exhibits, all pleadings and papers on file in this case, and upon such other oral argument and documentary evidence as may be presented prior to or at the hearing. Dated: November 17,2016 GALUPPO & BLAKE A Professional Law Corporation By: a 7-39 STEVEN W. BLAKE, ESQ. ANDREW E. HALL, ESQ. DANIEL WATTS, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM, PLAZA DEL SOL REAL ESTATE TRUST, WILLIAM PACKARD, and ROGER ARTZ 4. Artz’s Notice of Motion and Special anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike O e J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 %7 28 Steven W. Blake, Esq., SBN 235502 Andrew E. Hall, Esq., SBN 257547 Daniel Watts, Esq. SBN 277861 GALUPPO & BLAKE A Professional Law Corporation 2792 Gateway Road, Suite 102 Carlsbad, California 92009 Phone: (760) 431-4575 Fax: (760) 431-4579 Attorneys for Defendants MCWE, PLAZA DEL SOL, WILLIAM PACKARD, AND ROGER ARTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NEWPORT HARBOR OFFICES & MARINA, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiff, Vv. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM, a California corporation; PLAZA DEL SOL REAL ESTATE TRUST, a business organization of form unknown; ROGER ARTZ, an individual; WILLIAM PACKARD, an individual; DENNIS D’ALESSIO, an individual, VERTICAL MEDIA GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company, Darryl J. Paul, Esq., a licensed California attorney; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: 30-2016-00880121-CU-NP-CJC PROOF OF SERVICE Hearing Date: March 10, 2017 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. RESERVATION No: 72484184 Judge: Hon. James J. Di Cesare Dept... C-16 Filed October 7, 2016 Trial: ~~ None Set PROOF OF SERVICE EN Oo 0 NN O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 My business address is 2792 Gateway Road, Suite 102, Carlsbad, California 92009. DEFENDANT ROGER ARTZ’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP §425.16 [X] [X] [X] [X] I am employed in San Diego County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. On November 17, 2016, I served the foregoing document(s) in this action described as: by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiff, Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC Paul D. Copenbarger Scott R. Jackman COPENBARGER & ASSOCIATES 780 Roosevelt Irvine, CA 92629 BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Carlsbad, California. The envelopes were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with GALUPPO & BLAKE’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Carlsbad, California in the ordinary course of business. VIA ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, my electronic business address is lkoller@galuppolaw.com and 1 caused such document(s) to be electronically served through the e-service system for the above entitled case to those parties on the Service List maintained on its website for this case. The file transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the Filing/Service Receipt will be maintained with the original document(s) in our office. STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 17, 2016 at Carlsbad, California. (/ 44 CX ~U A Wasa Lind M Koller 3. PROOF OF SERVICE