Filed 2/17/22 Mendoza v. Gramse CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MENDOZA,

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and 

Appellant,

v.

MARILYN GRAMSE,

Defendant, Cross-complainant

and Respondent.

 D078307

 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-00018150-

 CU-BC-CTL)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Richard S. Whitney, Judge. Affirmed.

Andre L. Verdun for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Michael W. Jacobs, Michael W. Jacobs, and Janine R. 

Menhennet for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

James Mendoza sued his landlord, Marilyn Gramse, for refusing to 

repair allegedly substandard conditions in her home (where he rented a 

room) and retaliating against him when he complained. Gramse responded 
2

with a cross-complaint alleging elder abuse and breach of the parties’ lease. 

Filing an anti-SLAPP motion,1 Mendoza claimed Gramse’s cross-claims were 

based on his protected prelitigation statements and conduct, including his 

threat to sue Gramse. Denying the motion, the trial court concluded that 

properly construed, Gramse’s cross-claims against Mendoza were based solely 

on unprotected activity. Rejecting Mendoza’s contentions on appeal, we agree 

with the trial court and conclude Mendoza did not meet his moving burden to 

show that Gramse’s causes of action arose out of activity that the anti-SLAPP 

statute protects. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mendoza rented a room in Gramse’s single-family home in El Cajon. 

A dispute arose after Gramse raised Mendoza’s rent, prompting Mendoza to 

sue and Gramse to respond with a cross-complaint. Mendoza’s motion to 

strike the cross-complaint, and the trial court’s order denying that request, 

are at issue in this appeal.

A. Complaint and Cross-complaint

In June 2020, Mendoza sued Gramse for damages, claiming she refused 

to make repairs to render her single-family home habitable.2 He alleged that 

San Diego County’s Department of Environmental Health and Quality (DEH)

had warned Gramse to provide hot water on demand and central heat, but 

1 “A ‘SLAPP’ is a ‘ “strategic lawsuit against public participation” ’ 

[citation], and special motions to strike under [Code of Civil Procedure] 

section 425.16 are commonly referred to as ‘[a]nti-SLAPP motions’ [citation].” 

(Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1007, fn. 1

(Bonni).) (Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure.)

2 On our own motion, we augment the record with a copy of the 

complaint filed by Mendoza on June 2, 2020. (Rules of Court, rule 

8.155(a)(1)(A).) 
3

that Gramse continued to rent her home for profit while refusing to make 

needed repairs. According to Mendoza, Gramse retaliated against him for 

reporting these conditions by, among other things, raising his rent and 

eventually forcing him to vacate illegally and without a court order. The 

complaint asserted five causes of action: retaliation (Civ. Code, § 1942.5); 

failure to make required repairs (id., § 1942.4); interfering with his quiet 

enjoyment of the premises (id., § 1940.2); and negligence per se and unlawful 

business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on those alleged 

statutory violations. 

Gramse responded by filing a cross-complaint against Mendoza for

elder abuse and financial elder abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent 

Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.), intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Her allegations tell a 

different story about the parties’ interactions than the one offered by 

Mendoza. A 79-year-old homeowner, Gramse alleged she leased a room to 

Mendoza on a month-to-month lease beginning in July 2017. Their 

relationship soured, and in January 2019, Gramse asked him to vacate as 

permitted under their lease. Mendoza reacted with harassment and threats. 

He “routinely screamed at [her] and threatened to ‘sue and take [her]

property.’ He also continually referred to his firearm in a menacing manner.” 

According to Gramse, by the summer of 2019 Mendoza stopped paying rent. 

After several failed attempts to get him to leave, Gramse had the San Diego 

County Sheriff’s department personally serve him with a three-day Notice to 

Pay or Quit in August 2019. Mendoza later abandoned the premises. 

Gramse then served him with a Notice of Belief of Abandonment and 

eventually removed and donated the personal property he had left behind. 
4

B. Anti-SLAPP Motion

Mendoza filed a special motion to strike the entire cross-complaint 

under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16). Relying mostly on the general 

allegation pleaded in paragraph 12 of the cross-complaint that Mendoza

harassed Gramse by threatening to “ ‘sue and take her property,’ ” he claimed

he met his moving burden to show that all four cross-claims arose out of his 

protected petitioning activity. In Mendoza’s view, threats to sue Gramse 

constituted protected prelitigation communications under Feldman v. 1100 

Park Lane Associates (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Feldman).3 Mendoza

likewise asserted he was entitled to withhold rent and refuse to vacate (as 

alleged in paragraph 15 of the cross-complaint) under Green v. Superior 

Court of San Francisco (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616 (Green) and Civil Code section 

1942.4, such that a claim based on the nonpayment of rent accordingly arose 

out of an act in furtherance of his right to petition.4 Once the burden shifted 

to Gramse, Mendoza argued the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b))

3 Alleged threats by the landlord’s attorney in Feldman directing the 

sublessees to vacate, pay market rent, or face an unlawful detainer action 

were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute as “communications in 

connection with an ongoing dispute and in anticipation of litigation.” 

(Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1481.)

4 Green held that a warranty of habitability is implied by law in all 

California residential leases. (Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 631.) Because a 

tenant’s duty to pay rent is mutually dependent on the landlord’s fulfillment 

of the implied warranty of habitability, a tenant may assert that the landlord 

breached that warranty in defending against an unlawful detainer action. 

(Id. at p. 635.) Civil Code section 1942.4 statutorily prohibits a landlord from 

collecting or demanding rent for substandard dwellings. We will explore the 

potential application of these authorities to the prong one anti-SLAPP 

inquiry in section B.2 of the discussion, post.
5

prevented her from demonstrating a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of 

her cross-claims. 

In a supporting declaration, Mendoza claimed that he “intended to 

resolve an on-going dispute” at the time he threatened to sue Gramse. He 

explained that Gramse’s home lacked central heat, and hot water was 

available only in the mornings and evenings. Mendoza maintained he told 

Gramse that he would withhold rent until the substandard conditions were 

repaired. When Gramse failed to take corrective action, Mendoza states he 

contacted the county, which purportedly cited Gramse for not providing hot 

water on demand or adequate heat. Gramse defied the citation, telling the 

county it was “my house, my rules!!” Mendoza asserts she then grew

outraged, threatening Mendoza’s life, leaving harassing voicemails for his 

employer that got him fired, and sending him retaliatory notices to vacate. 

Attached to Mendoza’s declaration were three letters between DEH and 

Gramse. On January 22, 2019, DEH cited Gramse for substandard 

conditions based on the lack of hot water and adequate heat in her home. 

Gramse responded a week later by letter. She explained to DEH that hot 

water was set on a timer to be available mornings and evenings, and the 

fireplace provided adequate heat. Noting Mendoza was on a month-to-month 

lease and welcome to leave, she suggested it was not fair to require 

modifications, stating: “It seems like my house[,] my rules!!” On April 15, 

2019, DEH sent Gramse a notice and order requiring her to provide adequate 

heating and hot water on demand within 90 days or return the premises to 

being solely owner-occupied. 

C. Opposition

Gramse opposed the anti-SLAPP motion, arguing her case was not 

about Mendoza’s protected activity but rather “about an elderly woman 
6

taking in lodgers to supplement fixed expenses on a fixed income, and an 

abusive roommate.” She claimed that Mendoza became angry in response to 

a rent increase and “embarked on a campaign of harassment and 

intimidation, designed purely for the end game of taking [Gramse’s] home.” 

While acknowledging that the cross-complaint referenced Mendoza’s threat to 

sue, that threat came in the middle of a months-long course of harassment

and intimidation that began before Mendoza reported habitability concerns to 

DEH. Gramse maintained that Mendoza could not “cloak his threats and 

conduct with the mantle of a pre-judicial proceeding.” The mere fact that the 

cross-complaint was filed after protected activity took place did not mean that 

it arose from that activity. 

To the extent the burden shifted to her to demonstrate that her crossclaims had minimal merit, Gramse argued the litigation privilege did not 

apply because Mendoza’s threats to sue were not made in good faith while 

seriously contemplating litigation (citing Action Apartment Assn. v. City of 

Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1251). Further contending that 

Mendoza’s anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous, Gramse requested an award of 

$3,420 in attorney’s fees. (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) 

Gramse’s supporting declaration fleshed out the factual basis for her 

cross-claims. As an elderly woman, Gramse had long taken in roommates to 

help cover her maintenance costs and tax obligations. She and Mendoza 

verbally agreed to a month-to-month lease in mid-2017, pursuant to which 

Mendoza would rent a room in her house for $650 per month. Around April 

2018, the home’s solar hot water system broke. Gramse placed the hot water 

on a timer to ensure it would run in the morning and evening. Mendoza 

never complained about the hot water, nor about the lack of central heat (in 

lieu of which space heaters were offered). In June of that year, Mendoza 
7

started working from home and installed an air conditioning unit in his room, 

causing Gramse’s electric bills to soar. When she asked him to reimburse her 

and eventually raised his rent to $697 to cover the added expense, Mendoza 

became “verbally abusive, including letting [her] know about his gun and 

that he could use it at any time.” There were never any attempts to 

compromise, nor any discussions regarding dissatisfaction with the hot water 

timing or space heater. 

It was in this context that Mendoza reported Gramse to DEH in 

January 2019. Following that complaint, Gramse was told that she could no 

longer rent rooms unless she made repairs. She asked her roommates to 

leave, but all three (including Mendoza) stayed. In early February, Mendoza 

“yelled at [Gramse], telling [her] he was going to take [her] home from [her] 

and sue [her] for all [she] was worth.” Gramse grew so afraid of Mendoza 

that she installed locks on her master bedroom door and communicated with 

him solely by posting notes on his door. She eventually obtained a 

restraining order against him. 

In August 2019, Mendoza left for a few days. Assuming he had moved 

out, Gramse called Mendoza’s brother to come retrieve his belongings. She 

received a “threatening voicemail” from Mendoza the next day, warning her 

not to touch his stuff. She posted an eviction notice on Mendoza’s door and 

issued an abandonment notice for his belongings in October. Hearing

nothing for three months, she donated his belongings to charity. 

Tenant Will Scriven also submitted a declaration in support of 

Gramse’s opposition. Scriven testified that he moved into Gramse’s home

around February 2019. From the beginning, Mendoza pressured him to join 

his campaign to take Gramse’s home. He even invited Scriven to dinner one 

night to persuade him. Scriven refused the invitation, deeming Mendoza’s 
8

efforts “despicable and dishonest.” As to the specific complaints Mendoza

raised, Scriven stated that Gramse had offered him a room heater and 

showed all her tenants how to bypass the timer if they wanted hot water on 

demand. 

D. Ruling5

Following an unreported hearing, the trial court (Judge Richard 

Whitney) denied Mendoza’s motion, concluding he failed to meet his moving

burden to demonstrate that Gramse’s cross-claims were based on his 

protected activity. Reviewing the pleadings and declarations (§ 425.16, subd. 

(b)(2)), the court determined that Gramse’s cross-claims were based not on 

“threats to sue and withholding of rent based on habitability arguments,” but 

rather on Mendoza’s “failure to pay rent, his refusal to leave the property and 

his ‘constant physical, emotional and financial threats.” It explained that 

“[w]hile Gramse’s allegations that Mendoza threatened to sue her, in a 

vacuum, appear to implicate the litigation privilege and the anti-SLAPP 

statute, the allegation in the context of the other allegations and 

declarations[ ] indicate the cross-complaint arises out of Mendoza’s 

unprotected activity,” for which the threat to sue merely provided 

“evidentiary support and context.” 

In reaching its conclusion, the court drew parallels to Olive Properties, 

L.P. v. Coolwaters Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Olive 

Properties), in which a landlord sought to evict a tenant for not paying rent 

and common area maintenance charges. Three weeks before the landlord in 

5 Mendoza lodged evidentiary objections to the declarations submitted by 

Gramse and Scriven but did not file a reply brief. The court overruled 

Mendoza’s objections and, while denying his anti-SLAPP motion, also denied 

Gramse’s request for attorney’s fees. Neither the evidentiary rulings nor the 

denial of attorney’s fees is challenged on appeal. 
9

Olive Properties filed suit, the tenant preemptively sued for breach of the 

covenant of quiet enjoyment and negligent interference with prospective 

economic relations. Then, in response to the unlawful detainer complaint, 

the tenant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming the landlord’s unlawful 

detainer complaint arose out of its protected activity in filing a lawsuit. 

Rejecting this contention, the Olive Properties court reasoned that the 

landlord’s action arose out of the tenant’s unprotected acts of failing to pay 

rent and maintenance charges, rather than its subsequent act of filing suit. 

(Id. at p. 1176.) It cautioned that “[a] nonpaying tenant should not be 

permitted to frustrate or stall an anticipated eviction by filing a preemptive 

complaint against the landlord, followed by a special motion to strike the 

landlord’s [subsequently filed] unlawful detainer complaint on the ground it 

arose out of the tenant’s protected petitioning activity in filing the first 

lawsuit.” (Ibid.) By analogy, Judge Whitney reasoned that an abusive 

tenant “who first refuses to leave the property and later abandons it after 

failing to pay rent” should not be allowed to frustrate a landlord’s claims for 

elder abuse and nonpayment of rent by preemptively filing DEH complaints 

and threatening to sue. 

DISCUSSION

Mendoza challenges the trial court’s conclusion that Gramse’s claims 

did not arise out of his protected speech or petitioning activity. He suggests

that three liability-forming acts alleged in the cross-complaint—threatening 

to sue, failing to pay rent, and failing to vacate the property—were all 

protected as prelitigation statements or conduct under section 425.16, 

subdivision (e)(2). Rejecting his arguments, we conclude that Mendoza’s 

alleged liability is wholly predicated on unprotected activity and that the 

anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied.
10

A. Anti-SLAPP Framework

Codified at section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute creates a summaryjudgment-like procedure at the outset of a case to protect litigants from 

meritless lawsuits that might chill the exercise of constitutional rights to 

speech and petition. (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 

871, 883–884.) Resolving an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps. The 

moving party bears the initial burden to establish that the challenged causes 

of action arise from its protected speech or petitioning activity. (Id. at p. 884; 

see § 425.16, subd. (e) [listing four categories of protected activity].) If the 

moving party carries its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to 

demonstrate that its claims have at least minimal merit. (Wilson, at p. 884.) 

“Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute—

i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal 

merit—is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.” (Navellier v. 

Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 (Navellier); see § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

In meeting its prong one burden, “the moving [party] must identify the 

acts alleged in the complaint that it asserts are protected and what claims for 

relief are predicated on them. In turn, a court should examine whether those 

acts are protected and supply the basis for any claims.” (Bonni, supra, 11 

Cal.5th at p. 1010.) “[A] claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning 

activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or 

a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.” (Park v. 

Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1060 

(Park).) “A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies 

or forms the basis for the claim.” (Id. at p. 1062.)

If the anti-SLAPP movant meets its prong one burden, the burden 

shifts to the opposing party to “demonstrate that each challenged claim based 
11

on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated. The 

court, without resolving evidentiary conflicts, must determine whether the 

[opposing party’s] showing, if accepted by the trier of fact, would be sufficient 

to sustain a favorable judgment. If not, the claim is stricken.” (Baral v. 

Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396.) 

We review the grant or denial of an anti-SLAPP motion de novo. (Park, 

supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1067.) Where, as here, the inquiry focuses on prong 

one, “[w]e exercise independent judgment in determining whether, based on 

our own review of the record, the challenged claims arise from protected 

activity.” (Id. at p. 1067.) “In addition to the pleadings, we may consider 

affidavits concerning the facts upon which liability is based. [Citations.] 

We do not, however, weigh the evidence, but accept [the pleading party’s] 

submissions as true and consider only whether any contrary evidence from 

the [anti-SLAPP movant] establishes its entitlement to prevail as a matter of 

law.” (Ibid.) 

B. Gramse’s Cross-Claims Do Not Arise Out of Protected Activity.

Pointing to allegations found in paragraphs 12 and 15 of Gramse’s 

cross-complaint, Mendoza argues that each of her four cross-claims target his 

protected prelitigation activity. Paragraph 12 alleges that Mendoza “began 

harassing and threatening” her in early 2019, screaming at her and 

threatening “to ‘sue and take [her] property.’ ” Paragraph 15 asserts that 

Mendoza refused to pay rent starting in the summer of 2019. Located under 

the section heading, “General Allegations,” these paragraphs precede

Gramse’s causes of action for elder abuse, financial elder abuse, intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Mendoza maintains 

that a threat to sue was a protected prelitigation communication under 

Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467. He likewise contends that 
12

withholding rent and refusing to vacate until the substandard conditions 

were repaired were justified under Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d 616 and Civil 

Code section 1942.4. 

Gramse responds that none of her cross-claims arise out of Mendoza

filing a complaint against her in court or making reports to DEH (as Mendoza 

himself seems to acknowledge), nor out of any protected prelitigation 

statements preceding those acts. Rather, she argues, her cross-claims rest on 

Mendoza’s intimidation campaign and scare tactics in response to her rent 

increase, including his insinuation that he could use his gun and his open 

“scheming to rob her of her home.” This conduct was not transformed into 

protected activity merely because he uttered the word, “sue.” 

As we explain, Gramse has the better argument. Reviewing the crosscomplaint in conjunction with her declaration, Gramse’s four cross-claims 

rest on allegedly harassing and threatening conduct by Mendoza following 

the rent increase, his refusal to pay rent, and his refusal to vacate the 

premises after being properly served with a notice to pay or quit. 

Specifically, Gramse’s elder abuse and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress claims rest on Mendoza’s threats and intimidation, including his 

insinuation about using his firearm and his threats to sue her and take her 

property. Her remaining claims for financial elder abuse and breach of 

contract rest on his failure to pay rent and continued occupancy after the 

notice to pay or quit was properly served. 

Properly construed in light of the facts she has alleged, each of 

Gramse’s cross-claims is based on Mendoza’s unprotected activity. With

regard to the threat to sue, Mendoza cannot use an anti-SLAPP motion to 

dispute Gramse’s factual allegations and contend that based on how it really 

happened, his actions amounted to protected activity. And any defense 
13

Mendoza might have excusing his failure to pay rent or vacate is not relevant 

to the prong one inquiry. Because Mendoza failed to demonstrate that the 

cross-claims arise out of his protected activity, his motion was properly 

denied.

1. Mendoza’s Threat to Sue is Unprotected.

The anti-SLAPP statute protects “any written or oral statement or 

writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a 

legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding 

authorized by law.” (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) This provision covers not only 

the filing of litigation or seeking of administrative action, but also 

communications preparatory to or in anticipation of bringing an action or 

other official proceeding. (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity 

(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115 (Briggs); accord Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 

Cal.4th 299, 322, fn. 11 (Flatley).) 

At least in certain contexts, courts have had concluded that threats to 

sue constitute prelitigation conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. For 

example, where there were ongoing disputes between a brother and sister 

over the distribution of their father’s assets, the anti-SLAPP statute applied 

to a voicemail message by the brother’s attorney accusing a listing agent of 

conspiring with the sister and threatening to take “appropriate action” in 

response. (Rohde v. Wolf (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 28, 37 (Rohde).) The 

voicemail messages concerned the subject of the dispute in which both the 

brother and sister threatened litigation, and “the spectre of litigation loomed 

over all communications between the parties at that time.” (Ibid.) Likewise, 

threats to sue by a landlord’s attorney against an unauthorized sublessee—

consisting of telling the sublessees to move out, pay market rent, or face an 

unlawful detainer suit—were deemed to be protected prelitigation 
14

communications because they were made preparatory to the landlord filing 

an unlawful detainer lawsuit against the sublessee. (Feldman, supra, 160 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1481, citing Rohde, at p. 36.)

But these cases do not stand for the proposition that any threat to sue 

automatically merits anti-SLAPP protection. The anti-SLAPP statute 

requires a statement to bear a “connection with an issue under consideration 

or review” to merit statutory protection. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) Just as 

section 425.16 “does not accord anti-SLAPP protection to suits arising from 

any act [during litigation] having any connection, however remote, with an 

official proceeding” (Paul v. Friedman (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 853, 866), 

prelitigation statements or conduct must bear some connection with a

preexisting dispute to merit protection.

In Rohde, for example, a lawyer’s threats to take appropriate action 

were “made in connection with an asset that was the subject of the dispute in 

which both plaintiff and defendant threatened litigation.” (Rohde, supra, 

154 Cal.App.4th at p. 37.) In the context of the parties’ dealings, an 

attorney’s voicemails threatening to take appropriate action were necessarily

made “in anticipation of litigation ‘contemplated in good faith and under 

serious consideration.’ ” (Ibid.) Citing Rohde, the Feldman court likewise 

concluded that statements by a landlord’s attorney threatening to sue were 

protected because they “were communications in connection with an ongoing 

dispute and in anticipation of litigation.” (Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 1481.) A similar approach applied in Briggs, where landlords sued a 

nonprofit for defamation for (among other things) advising their tenant on 

habitability issues stemming from a broken refrigerator. The landlords’ 

claim targeted protected activity in Briggs because the nonprofit’s counseling 

“apparently, was in anticipation of litigation,” and the tenant had thereafter 
15

sued over the broken refrigerator in small claims court. (Briggs, supra, 

19 Cal.4th at p. 1115.)

Applying those principles here, we conclude Mendoza’s threat to sue 

did not amount to protected activity. According to Gramse, Mendoza became 

verbally abusive when she tried to raise his rent, first insinuating that he 

had a gun and would use it, and later threatening to take Gramse’s property 

and sue her for all she was worth. Crucial for our purposes is her assertion 

that Mendoza at no point attempted to compromise, much less express 

dissatisfaction with the hot water timing or space heaters. Crediting 

Gramse’s allegations, as we must, Mendoza did not make his threat to sue in 

good faith or seriously contemplating litigation. (Rohde, supra, 

154 Cal.App.4th at p. 37.) Indeed, his threat was not even made in apparent 

anticipation of litigation. (Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1115.) There is 

simply too attenuated a connection between Mendoza’s threat and any official 

proceeding to come within section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2).6

That Mendoza’s declaration recounts the facts differently (suggesting 

he demanded repairs in threatening to sue) does not change our conclusion. 

In evaluating whether the challenged claims arise from protected activity, we 

“accept [Gramse’s] submissions as true and consider only whether any 

contrary evidence from [Mendoza] establishes [his] entitlement to prevail as a 

6 In reaching this conclusion, we diverge to some extent from the trial 

court’s reasoning that Mendoza’s threat to sue Gramse merely provided 

context or evidence for her cross-claims. Gramse’s elder abuse and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress claims are predicated in part on Mendoza’s 

threat to sue her and take her property. As to those cross-claims, the threat 

to sue (like the threat regarding his firearm) “itself is the wrong complained 

of.” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1060; see, e.g., Bonni, supra, 11 Cal.5th at 

p. 1012 [question is whether the acts are alleged as a basis for relief, and not 

merely recited as background].)
16

matter of law.” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1067.) Mendoza’s declaration at 

most creates a factual dispute on the merits of Gramse’s claim, and does not 

demonstrate he engaged in protected activity as a matter of law. Moreover, 

an anti-SLAPP movant cannot reframe the allegations in a pleading to meet 

its prong one burden. (See Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health 

(2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 218−219 (Central Valley) [defendant could not 

recast what it claimed the plaintiff’s causes of action were based on]; Medical 

Marijuana, Inc. v. Project CBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 883 [because 

the pleadings frame the issues for an anti-SLAPP motion, the act that 

underlies a plaintiff’s claim “is determined from the plaintiff’s allegations”].)7

Simply put, Mendoza does not meet his prong one burden to show that 

Gramse’s cross-claims for elder abuse and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress arise out any prelitigation communication that was sufficiently 

connected to anticipated litigation that it warrants protection under the antiSLAPP statute.

2. Mendoza’s Nonpayment of Rent and Failure to Vacate Are 

Unprotected.

Gramse’s cross-claims for financial elder abuse and breach of contract 

rest on Mendoza’s alleged nonpayment of rent and refusal to vacate after 

being properly served with a notice to pay rent or quit. Asserting that those 

7 Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1037, 

1047 is instructive. There, a tabloid was sued by a celebrity after its agent 

placed an illegal tracking device on the celebrity’s car. The tabloid conceded 

that under Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th 299, placing an illegal tracking device 

on the car was not protected speech. But it insisted that it merely hired the 

agent to take photographs—newsgathering activities amounting to protected 

speech. (Simmons, at p. 1047.) Rejecting this argument, the court noted that 

the tabloid’s assertion contradicted allegations in the operative complaint. 

The parties’ factual dispute went to the merits of the celebrity’s claims and 

was not relevant to the prong one inquiry. (Ibid.)
17

claims also challenge his protected prelitigation conduct, Mendoza contends

he was entitled to withhold rent and refuse to vacate the home under Green, 

supra, 10 Cal.3d 616 and Civil Code section 1942.4 on account of allegedly

substandard conditions in Gramse’s home. As we explain, Mendoza 

misunderstands the import of those authorities.

The focus in prong one is on “the elements of the challenged claim and 

what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form 

the basis for liability.” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1063, italics added.) 

“Arguments about the merits of the claims are irrelevant to the first step of 

the anti-SLAPP analysis.” (Coretronic Corp. v. Cozen O’Connor (2011) 192 

Cal.App.4th 1381, 1388; see Central Valley, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 217 

[“ ‘[t]he question is what is pled—not what is proven’ ”].) Reviewing the 

pleadings and declarations, we must “determine what conduct is actually 

being challenged, not . . . whether the conduct is actionable.” (Coretronic, at 

p. 1389.) Our sole inquiry is whether “the defendant’s activity that gives rise 

to his or her asserted liability . . . constitutes protected speech or petitioning.” 

(Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 92; see Park, at p. 1063 [liability-forming 

act must itself constitute protected speech or petitioning].)

A claim for financial elder abuse requires the following elements: 

(1) the taking of property, (2) of a person over the age of 65, (3) for a wrongful 

use or with the intent to defraud, and (4) resulting damages. (Welf. & Inst. 

Code, § 15610.30, subd. (a)(1); see CACI No. 3100.) A claim for breach of 

contract requires the existence of a valid contract, performance by the suing 

party or an excuse for nonperformance, failure to perform by the other party, 

and resulting damages. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 

830.) Gramse alleges that Mendoza is liable under these theories because he 

refused to pay rent or vacate the premises after proper service of a notice to 
18

pay or quit. Generally speaking, “[a] tenant’s failure to pay rent . . . is not an 

act in furtherance of the lessee’s right of petition or free speech.” (Olive 

Properties, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176.)

Reasoning that a tenant’s duty to pay rent is mutually dependent on a

landlord’s fulfillment of the implied warranty of habitability implied in every 

residential lease, the Supreme Court held in Green that a tenant could defend

against a claim for nonpayment of rent by arguing that the nonpayment was 

justified and no rent was due. (Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 635.) Along 

similar lines, Civil Code section 1942.4 statutorily prohibits a landlord from 

collecting rent or issuing a notice to pay or quit where the dwelling has 

substandard conditions. But even assuming these authorities provide a 

potential defense to Gramse’s claims (e.g., by negating wrongful intent or 

excusing contractual nonperformance), that would not transform the bases for 

those claims into protected activity. Mendoza cannot establish that his 

failure to pay rent or refusal to vacate are themselves acts in furtherance of 

his right to petition or free speech (see Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1063) 

merely because he believes those acts were legally justified. (See, e.g., 

Lefebvre v. Lefebvre (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 696, 703 [“privileged activity” 

does not equate to “protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP statute].)

Accordingly, he did not meet his burden to establish that cross-claims based 

on his nonpayment of rent and failure to vacate arise out of protected 

prelitigation activity.

Because Mendoza did not meet his prong one burden as to any of the 

four causes of action asserted in Gramse’s cross-complaint, the trial court 

properly denied his motion without reaching prong two. (Freeman v. Schack 

(2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 719, 733.)
19

DISPOSITION

The order denying the anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed. Gramse is 

entitled to recover her costs on appeal.

DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, Acting P. J.

DO, J.