Filed 6/28/23 Zochlinski v. Blum CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ---- HOWARD ZOCHLINSKI, C091878 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CVCV-19-315) v. JUDY BLUM et al., Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Howard Zochlinski and defendant Judy Blum were neighbors in Davis. In 2017, the house plaintiff was occupying as a renter was placed in receivership and he was forced to move out. Plaintiff, in propria persona, filed a complaint against Blum, defendant Scott Ragsdale, Blum’s son, and others, seeking to recover damages for, among other things, libel, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of his federal and state civil rights. The complaint focused on Blum’s alleged decades-long campaign, motivated by alleged anti-Semitism, to force plaintiff out of the neighborhood by making code 1 enforcement complaints against him, circulating a petition, and sending an e-mail to the receiver’s representative claiming plaintiff had been seen trespassing on Blum’s property and that police had been notified. Blum and Ragsdale (hereinafter, collectively, defendants) filed a special motion to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.1 Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed exhibits, to which defendants filed evidentiary objections. After oral argument in the trial court, the court sustained defendants’ objections, granted their special motion to strike the complaint, and awarded them attorney fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c). On appeal, plaintiff contends (1) he asserts causes of action other than those based on slander and libel, including civil rights claims, seeming to imply section 425.16 does not apply to these other causes of action, and specifically asserting that section 425.16 does not apply to federal civil rights claims, (2) Blum’s e-mail to the receiver’s representative was not protected activity, (3) the trial court erred in not permitting him to present additional evidence and cure any defects in that evidence, and (4) whether he prevails on this appeal or not, he should not have to pay attorney fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c). We affirm. BACKGROUND The Complaint Plaintiff, in propria persona, commenced this action against Blum and Ragsdale, among others, by filing a complaint seeking to recover damages for, among other things, 1 “Anti-SLAPP” refers to the procedural vehicle provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 to strike legal actions intended as a “ ‘strategic lawsuit against public participation.’ ” (See Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 85 & fn. 1 (Navellier).) Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 libel, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of plaintiff’s federal and state civil rights. The …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals