Anti-SLAPP Motion Should Not Have Been Granted.

A landlord served a tenant with a three-day notice to cure or quit, and the tenant brought an action against the landlord requesting declaratory relief and alleging breach of contract and intentional interference with contract. The landlord filed an unlawful detainer action, and with regard to the tenant’s complaint, filed an anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which the trial court granted. The tenant appealed, and the appellate court reversed, explaining: “The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the causes of action asserted in [the tenant’s] complaint arose out of [the landlord’s] petitioning activity—protected under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1)—of service of the three-day notice to cure or quit and the subsequent unlawful detainer action. We conclude that while the three-day notice might have triggered the complaint, the evidence in the record demonstrates the complaint was based on an underlying dispute over [the landlord’s] repair and maintenance obligations under the sublease and other unprotected activities. We therefore reverse the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and the order awarding [the landlord] attorney fees.” Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism   (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; April 30, 2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1237.