Lambdin v. Mangold Prop. Mgmt.

1

EVELYN M. LAMBDIN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MANGOLD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents

H050445

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

January 22, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 22CV001731)

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises from a landlord-tenant dispute involving plaintiffs Evelyn M. Lambdin and Lawrence C. McGhee. Plaintiffs were longtime tenants of residential real property managed by defendant Mangold Property Management, Inc. (Mangold). The owner of the property decided to sell the property after her husband died, and Mangold took steps to have plaintiffs vacate the property. After plaintiffs failed to vacate the property and also fell behind in their rent payments, Mangold initiated an unlawful detainer action. While the unlawful detainer action was pending, plaintiffs vacated the property and moved to a home they had purchased.

Plaintiffs then filed a complaint naming as defendants Mangold, property manager Kyle Strutner, Mangold's president Craig Coming Mangold's collections manager Ashley Blackmon, and the attorney representing Mangold in the unlawful detainer proceedings, Steven Andre, alleging that defendants had committed retaliation and other wrongdoing during their tenancy. Defendants responded to the complaint by bringing a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,^[1] the anti-SLAPP^[2]statute, which provides that a cause of action arising from constitutionally protected speech or petitioning activity is subject to a special motion to strike unless the plaintiff establishes a probability of prevailing on the claim. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court granted defendants' anti-SLAPP motion as to all 17 causes of action in the complaint.

On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion because the causes of action do not arise from activity that is protected under section 425.16. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the trial court did not err and we will affirm the order striking the complaint and dismissing it with prejudice and awarding defendants attorney fees of $10,200.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In 2009, plaintiffs entered into a written lease agreement with Mangold to rent the residential real property located at 2 Caroline Lane in Marina. In 2010, the lease for the property was renewed on a month to month basis. In 2019, Strutner, who had been assigned to the property as Mangold's property manager, served an exemption notice on plaintiffs, which stated in part: "You are hereby notified, in accordance with Civil Code 1946.2: [¶] This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause [to terminate tenancy] requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code."

Plaintiffs fell behind in their rent payments and in February 2021 Mangold sent plaintiffs a notice of the Covid-19 Tenant Relief Act Extension (Code Civ. Proc., § 1179.04, subd. (b).) Lambdin responded in a May 2021 email that plaintiffs would "not be participating in the program due to AMI [area median income] cap ineligibility."

In November 2021 the owner decided to sell the property after the death of her husband. The owner instructed Strutner to take the necessary steps to have plaintiffs vacate the property. On November 29, 2021, Strutner served plaintiffs with a 60-day notice of termination of tenancy, which informed plaintiffs that their tenancy was terminated on January 31, 2022.

Plaintiff Lambdin responded to the 60-day notice by advising Strutner that plaintiffs needed more than 60 days to relocate, and proposed an extension of their tenancy to May 31, 2022. Strutner contacted the owner, who declined to extend plaintiffs' tenancy to May 31, 2022, but offered two alternatives: (1) if plaintiffs vacated the premises on January 31, 2022, they would receive a credit of $1900 towards their outstanding rent; or (2) plaintiffs' tenancy would be extended to February 28, 2022, with no rent forgiveness.

In December 2021 and January 2022 Strutner followed up with plaintiffs regarding the owner's alternative offers. Plaintiffs did not respond directly to these offers. Instead, plaintiffs informed Strutner that they were looking for a home to buy and could not determine when they would be able to vacate the property until they had a date for close of escrow.

Plaintiffs did not vacate the property by the time the 60-day notice to terminate tenancy expired on January 31, 2022. In a January 31, 2022 email Strutner told plaintiffs that the owner wanted to get the property on the market, and since plaintiffs had not accepted the owner's offer to extend their tenancy, he planned to contact an attorney and begin the unlawful detainer process. In the January 31, 2022 email Strutner also stated: "An Unlawful Detainer Action will significantly hurt your credit and likely your ability to buy or rent a house in the future." Strutner returned the rent check that plaintiffs had dropped off on February 1, 2022, because accepting the rent check would waive the 60-notice of termination of tenancy and plaintiffs had not agreed to a move out date.

On February 3, 2022, Coming, the president of Mangold, emailed plaintiffs regarding their tenancy. In the email, Coming stated that the eviction proceedings could be stopped if plaintiffs either vacated the property or sent a 30-day notice of intention to move out. Plaintiffs did neither, and objected to Mangold "threatening" their credit score. However, Mangold did not pursue eviction based on the expiration of the 60-day notice because the owner had made an offer on February 12, 2022, to sell the property to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs rejected the offer and on February 17, 2022, informed Strutner that they were in escrow to purchase another home and planned to vacate the property by April 30, 2022.

In a March 11, 2022 email Strutner requested that plaintiffs pay the rent they owed for February, March, and April 2022 since they were planning to stay in the property until April 30, 2022. Plaintiffs did not pay the rent owed for February, March, and April 2022 or provide an update regarding their plans to vacate the property. Strutner then advised plaintiffs that the owner had not agreed that they could stay in the property without paying rent until they closed escrow; plaintiffs owed a total of $12,425 in outstanding rent payments, and the owner was willing to wait for them to vacate the property on May 14, 2022.

After Mangold received no response from plaintiffs, on April 20, 2022, Strutner served plaintiffs with two 3-day notices to pay rent for February, March and April 2022 or quit. On the same day, April 20, 2022, Lambdin informed Coming that she would hand in their keys on May 14, 2022. In a letter dated April 20, 2022, Mangold's attorney, Steven Andre, advised plaintiffs that he would be filing an unlawful detainer action to evict plaintiffs for unpaid rent unless plaintiffs agreed to a payment plan for their outstanding rent payments. Plaintiffs did not agree to a payment plan, and on April 26, 2022, Mangold filed an unlawful detainer action, Mangold Property Management v. Lambdin, Monterey County Superior Court case No. 22CV001144.

Plaintiffs did not return their keys on May 14, 2022. On May 17, 2022, Strutter posted a 24-hour notice of intent to enter the property on May 18, 2022, for the purpose of a property inspection. Strutner wanted to determine if plaintiffs had vacated the property after a neighbor told him that a moving van was seen at the property. When Strutner inspected the property on May 18, 2022, he determined that plaintiffs had vacated the property. On May 25, 2022, Strutner took possession of the property and changed the locks. Mangold also notified plaintiffs that if they had left personal property behind, they should make arrangements to pick it up. However, plaintiffs did not arrange to pick up any personal property.

No one at Mangold reported plaintiffs to a credit reporting agency during their tenancy. The only charge imposed on plaintiffs, other than the monthly rent payment, was a $100 late fee in May 2022. Blackmon, Mangold's collections manager, prepared a post-eviction statement of the disposition of plaintiffs' security deposit that was sent to plaintiffs at their new address. According to Blackmon, plaintiffs' security deposit was not returned because the amount they owed for unpaid rent, interior cleaning, and yard clean-up work exceeded the deposit.

B. The Complaint

Plaintiffs filed a verified form complaint in June 2022 that named Mangold, Coming, Strutner, Blackmon, and attorney Andre as defendants. The factual allegations in the complaint included the following. Plaintiffs were unable to earn income to pay rent due to the COVID pandemic. On May 24, 2022, defendants conducted an unauthorized inspection of the property and on May 25, 2022, defendants actually entered and took possession of the property, locking plaintiffs out without a court order. However, plaintiffs stated that they vacated the property on May 25, 2022.

Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant made "[c]onstant threats of eviction from November 2021 until the present" and "[u]authorized entries to the premises from November 2021 until the present." According to plaintiffs they terminated their lease "under anticipatory repudiation" and defendants retaliated by beginning "an escalating pattern of retaliation, harassing, threatening, withholding services."

Plaintiffs also complained that defendants returned their rental payment in February 2022 after issuing notices of termination of tenancy. De...