Unpublished California Appellate Decision (Fourth District, Third Division)

MICHAEL MOJTAHEDI v. GREG CARPENTER  (September 14, 2022) [HOA director loses SLAPP motion]

Plaintiffs Michael Mojtahedi and Mojdeh Mojtahedi along with defendant Greg Carpenter are homeowners in Laguna Sands, a condominium complex in Laguna Beach, California. Plaintiff Mojdeh Mojtahedi and defendant concurrently served on the homeowners association's board of directors. Plaintiffs sued defendant, the homeowners association, and other individual board members for breach of written contract, enforcement of equitable servitudes, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Among other things, the complaint alleges defendant wrongfully used funds from the homeowners association for projects and repairs benefiting his units and failed to disclose his personal interests. The complaint also alleges defendant misrepresented some of the improvements as emergency repairs. The relevant repairs occurred when defendant was president of the board of directors. Defendant filed a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. He asserted plaintiffs' claims arose, in part, from protected activity because some of the allegations concerned his statements or voting at board meetings. He also argued plaintiffs could not establish a likelihood of success on their claims. The court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding plaintiffs' claims did not arise from the protected conduct of voting. Instead, the court found plaintiffs' claims arose from defendant's "failure to disclose a number of material facts to benefit himself, and the spending of large sums of the Association's money and reserves in violation of the project documents, state law, or based upon [his] fiduciary duty to members of the association." The court concluded any voting allegations were incidental to the alleged wrongdoing. Defendant appealed.  After reviewing the record de novo, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court properly denied the anti-SLAPP motion as plaintiffs' claims did not arise from protected activity.