This morning, Helmer Friedman LLP defeated a landlord’s motion to dismiss a familial status discrimination lawsuit (Pitts v. Financial Management Co. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC644978).  In the underlying lawsuit, a Los Angeles area couple, Karen Pitts and Michael Pitts sued their landlord (defendants Actress Frieda Rentie and Financial Management Company), alleging after Ms. Rentie learned that Karen Pitts was pregnant and she and her husband Michael were expecting their second child, Ms. Rentie gave them a “60 day notice to quit”, which terminated their lease. In response, the defendants filed a motion – called an anti-SLAPP motion – pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 to dismiss the Pitts’ lawsuit, contending that it was frivolous litigation and that it arose from the defendant’s “60 day notice to quit” which was an exercise of their right to petition the government. The Pitts, represented by Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, argued that the Pitts’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit arose from the landlord’s allegedly discriminatory eviction and not any protected activity. At the hearing on the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the Honorable Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige (Department 54 of the Los Angeles Superior Court) denied the motion filed in response to the plaintiffs’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit. In his decision, Judge Hiroshige agreed with the arguments made by Mr. Friedman: “Defendant Frieda Rentie, individually and dba Financial Management Company, moves to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425. 16). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ action arises out of service of the 60-day notice to quit- a necessary prerequisite to filing an unlawful detainer actions- and thus falls under the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court disagrees . . .  Plaintiffs’ are not challenging the eviction procedure but the eviction decision itself. Thus, while service of the 60-day notice is arguably a protected activity, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not arise from this activity and thus is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.”    You can read Defendants’ motion here, the Pitts’ opposition here, and the Court’s decision here.