DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV02069·santabarbara·Civil·Civil Law & Motion
Hearing 9 days agoGRANTED in part, DENIED in part

Joseph L. Shalant v. Whitney Fink and Eric Gans

1. Special Motion to Strike; 2. Demurrer

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Anti-SLAPP Motion rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$7,500$15,000$11,330.00

Parties

PlaintiffJoseph L. Shalant
DefendantWhitney Fink
DefendantEric Gans

Attorneys

Joseph L. Shalantfor Plaintiff
Eric B. Gansfor Defendant
Charles M. Oxtonfor Defendant

Ruling

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 08/26/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings 1. Special Motion to Strike of Defendant Eric Gans; 2. Demurrer of Defendant Whitney Fink to Complaint Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Joseph L. Shalant: Self-represented For Defendant Whitney Fink: Eric B. Gans For Defendant Eric Gans: Charles M. Oxton

For the reasons set forth herein: The special motion of Defendant Eric Gans to strike the second and third causes of action as to that Defendant is granted. The complaint as against Defendant Gans is ordered dismissed. The Court awards reasonable attorney fees against Plaintiff Joseph L. Shalant and in favor of Defendant Eric Gans in the total amount of $11,330.00. The demurrer of Defendant Whitney Fink is sustained, with leave to amend, as to the second cause of action, and is in all other respects overruled. Plaintiff Shalant shall file and serve his first amended complaint on or before September 10, 2026. Because the special motion to strike is granted, the first amended complaint shall not set forth any claim against Defendant Eric Gans.

Background

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Joseph L. Shalant: Shalant is the owner, through his family trust, of residential property located at 588 Puente Drive, Santa Barbara (the Property). (Complaint, P. 1.) Shalant is also the owner of a 2018 Subaru Outback (the Vehicle) that Defendant Whitney Fink possesses and has refused to return to Shalant. (Complaint, P. 2.) Prior to July 9, 2024, Shalant orally permitted Fink to reside at the Property until notified otherwise. (Complaint, P. 3.) On July 9, 2024, Shalant notified Fink that until she requested and obtained Shalant's permission to continue to reside at the Property, she would no longer have his permission to do so. (Complaint, P. 4.)

Fink continued to reside at the Property without Shalant's permission. (Complaint, P. 5.) Shalant served Fink with notice to vacate and then filed an unlawful detainer action, which remains pending. (Complaint, P. 7.) The reasonable monthly rental value of the Property is $7,500 or more. (Complaint, P. 8.) Gans is a businessman in Santa Barbara. (Complaint, P. 11.) Gans has conducted himself tortiously in conjunction with Fink to cause economic harm to Shalant, relying on Fink's December 11, 2024, email to realtor

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share