PAUL ARON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WIB HOLDINGS et al., Defendants and Appellants., 21 Cal. App. 5th 1069

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Because newly discovered evidence under Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. (4), had to be evidence that existed at the time of trial, a tenant whose complaint under a harassment ordinance had been stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, could not obtain a new trial based on the issuance of a remittitur affirming an unlawful detainer judgment, which had not been issued at the time of the anti-SLAPP hearing and thus was not newly discovered; [2]-The trial court did not err by granting the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing the tenant's complaint because the landlord's filing of the unlawful detainer action was protected petitioning activity, that activity was not illegal as a matter of law, and the tenant had no probability of prevailing because the harassment claim had been prematurely filed while the landlord's unlawful detainer appeal remained pending.