| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Strike Pursuant to CCP § 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”); Demurrer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Andrey Mentus; Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Claim
4-6. 25CV04054 BLOW, TRAVIS ET AL V. MENTUS, ANDREY ET AL EVENTS: (1) Motion to Strike Pursuant to CCP § 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”) (2) Demurrer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Andrey Mentus (3) Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Claim
Motion to Strike Pursuant to CCP §425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”) Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 provides a two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP. Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88.
First, the Court must decide whether the Cross-Defendants Travis Blow and Janessa Blow (“Cross- Defendants” herein) have made a threshold showing that the challenged causes of action are those arising from protected activity. Ibid. Here, the Court finds that Cross- Defendants have done so.
Cross-Complainant Andrey Mentus’ claims arise from activity and speech protected under the Anti-SLAPP statute because: (1) Cross-Defendants’ town hall statements were made during a public proceeding convened by the Town of Paradise, a governmental body, concerning construction quality, inspection standards, and habitability of homes built in the post-Camp Fire rebuild. Such statements fall squarely within the absolute privilege of Civil Code §47(b) and within the protected activity categories of Code of Civil Procedure §425.16(e)(2). (2) Cross-Defendant Janessa Blow’s social media posts are not related solely to a private dispute between a homeowner and a seller, but instead involve matters of public concern, which are protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure §425.16(e)(3) and (4) as a matter of law.
If the Court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the Cross-Complainant has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. Navellier v. Sletten, supra at 8
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, the Court finds that Cross-Complainant has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating a probably of prevailing. The Motion to Strike Pursuant to CCP §425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP”) is granted in its entirety, the Court strikes and dismisses Cross-Complainant Andrey Mentus's claims for libel (First Cause of Action) and slander (Second Cause of Action) as to both Cross- Defendants Travis Blow and Janessa Blow, and awards Cross-Defendants' attorney’s fees and costs as mandatory prevailing parties under Code of Civil Procedure §425.16(c) in the amount of $9,205, which are to be paid within thirty days’ notice of this ruling. Counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Travis Blow and Janessa Blow shall submit a form of order within two weeks.
Demurrer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Andrey Mentus “The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.” Collins v. eMachines (2011)
2|Page
202 Cal.App.4th 249, 259. “The facts constituting the fraud, including every element of the cause of action, must be alleged ‘factually and specifically’” to survive demurrer. Apollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 240 [citing Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216-17].
Here, the Court finds that fraud has been sufficiently pled. See Cross- Complaint at ¶¶58-60, 129-134], and the Demurrer is overruled. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by counsel for the Cross-Complainant.
Motion to Strike Punitive Damages The Motion is unopposed and is granted. The Court strikes the following from the Verified Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainant Andrey Mentus for Damages, filed on January 22, 2026: (1) Cross-Complaint, Pg.13; lines 3 – 5: Cross-Defendants Travis and Janessa Blow acted with malice, oppression, and fraud in making and publishing these false statements, which is further sufficient to support a demand for punitive damages. (2) Cross-Complaint, Pg. 14; Lines 6 – 8: Travis and Janessa Blow acted with malice, oppression, and fraud in making and causing to be made these false statements, which is further sufficient to support a demand for punitive damages. (3) Cross-Complaint, Pg. 20; Lines 14 – 15; For punitive damages in accordance with California Civil Code § 3294 due to Defendant’s fraud.
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Travis Blow and Janessa Blow shall submit a form of order within two weeks.
7-9. 25CV04754 DONNA MCLAUGHLIN, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST HEIDI BLIDE ET AL V. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER ET AL EVENTS: (1) Defendants Francisco Javier Alvarez, M.D. and Enloe Primary Physicians Medical Group, Inc., dba Chico Hospitalist Group’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (2) Defendants Francisco Javier Alvarez, M.D. and Enloe Primary Physicians Medical Group, Inc., dba Chico Hospitalist Group’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs From Plaintiffs’ Complaint (3) Defendants Enloe Medical Center dba Enloe Health; Stephen Shipley, M.D.; and Chico Emergency Physician Medical Group, Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint
Defendants Francisco Javier Alvarez, M.D. and Enloe Primary Physicians Medical Group, Inc., dba Chico Hospitalist Group’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint Defendants Francisco Javier Alvarez, M.D. and Enloe Primary Physicians Medical Group, Inc., dba Chico Hospitalist Group’s (collectively “Moving Defendants” herein) Request for Judicial Notice is granted.
3|Page