Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Haralambos Vlavianos sued Westlake La Baya Co., Fred Szkolnik, Glenn Freeman, process server E. Chavez, and Doe defendants in September 2025 over two unlawful detainer actions Westlake brought in Ventura and Los Angeles counties. The complaint alleged that Westlake described itself inconsistently as a partnership and a corporation, that Freeman verified the filings and Szkolnik was counsel of record, and that expired leases were filed opposing a demurrer. It also alleged that Chavez entered Vlavianos's gated residential property while attempting service despite orders permitting posting at commercial property, and made false statements in a proof of service. Vlavianos pleaded negligence, fraud, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy against all defendants, but pleaded trespass only against "Chavez and those who directed him."
Szkolnik moved to strike in October 2025; Westlake and Freeman moved the next month under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, arguing the claims arose from protected litigation activity, invoking the litigation privilege, and requesting fees. Vlavianos opposed, arguing alleged illegality removed the conduct from protection; his oppositions addressed fraud, abuse of process, emotional distress, and conspiracy but not negligence or trespass, and requested discovery without a noticed motion. The superior court granted both motions in December 2025, denied the discovery request, declined to analyze the trespass count because it did not name the respondents, found the remaining claims rooted in protected litigation activity, concluded Vlavianos showed no likelihood of success, applied the litigation privilege, and awarded fees. Vlavianos timely appealed; Westlake did not appear, and Freeman joined Szkolnik's brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo and affirmed. The complaint itself defined the claims, so Vlavianos's assertion that "those who directed" Chavez meant the respondents could not expand a trespass count that did not name them; no allegation or evidence showed a respondent directed Chavez to trespass, and the record contained no amended complaint. Baral allows anti-SLAPP challenges to distinct claims within causes of action but does not require analyzing every cause of action regardless of whom it targets.
At the first step, the claims principally arose from filing, signing, or verifying documents in unlawful detainer proceedings — protected petitioning activity — so the fraud, abuse of process, emotional distress, and conspiracy allegations concerned protected activity. Westlake and Freeman were not connected to the alleged unlawful service; Szkolnik admitted hiring Chavez but declared he did not prescribe the manner of service, and hiring a process server to initiate litigation is protected. The court rejected arguments based on an email and an alleged trespass conspiracy for lack of record support.
At the second step, Vlavianos could not rely solely on his verified complaint; his briefing cited no competent admissible evidence, so the court affirmed. It found no error in the minimal-merit approach or the unchallenged discovery ruling, and the litigation-privilege challenge failed because he did not show any respondent committed or directed an unprivileged trespass. The court affirmed the fee awards, awarded Szkolnik appellate costs, and required Freeman to bear his own.
Key Takeaways
- A trespass count pleaded only against a process server and unnamed directors was not treated as a claim against the other defendants merely because other counts named all defendants.
- Filing, signing, and verifying litigation documents, and hiring a process server without directing an alleged trespass, constituted protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- A plaintiff opposing an anti-SLAPP motion cannot establish minimal merit solely through a verified complaint and must provide competent admissible evidence.
- Arguments lacking record citations, including points raised for the first time in a reply brief, did not establish reversible error.
- Affirmance of the anti-SLAPP orders resolved the contingent fee challenge; appellate costs were allocated separately between Szkolnik and Freeman.
Why It Matters
The decision applies settled anti-SLAPP principles to claims attacking how unlawful detainer litigation was filed, verified, and served, separating protected litigation participation from an alleged physical trespass by focusing on the pleaded allegations and evidence connecting each defendant to that conduct.
It also underscores appellate presentation: reliance on pleadings, incomplete record citations, and new reply-brief arguments left the order presumed correct. The unpublished decision is not citable except as permitted by rule 8.1115(b), and the separate trespass count against Chavez remains outside the affirmed rulings.