Potter v. Barenholtz CA2/4

── Potter v. Barenholtz CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 Potter v. Barenholtz CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JESSE ROBERT POTTER, B338369 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV28751) v. BRETT BARENHOLTZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard L. Fruin, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions. Shapero & Shapero and Steven J. Shapero; Bruce Adelstein for Defendant and Appellant. Hayes Litigation and Daniel M. Hayes for Plaintiff and Respondent.  INTRODUCTION Here we join a long line of appellate cases in holding that the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47 bars derivative tort claims based on allegations of extrinsic fraud. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, asserting both equitable and tort claims stemming from plaintiff’s eviction from a condominium pursuant to a default judgment obtained in unlawful detainer proceedings. In this civil action, plaintiff alleges that the default judgment and subsequent writ of possession in the prior unlawful detainer action were obtained through defendant’s extrinsic fraud. In response, defendant filed a special motion to strike under our anti- SLAPP statute, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the litigation privilege. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 The trial court denied the motion and awarded plaintiff his attorneys’ fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant now appeals, arguing the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff’s tort claims were not barred by the litigation privilege. We agree and reverse the trial court’s ruling as to plaintiff’s tort claims. As we determine that defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion had merit, we also reverse the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff. 1 The term “SLAPP” stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. 2  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Parties and Background Plaintiff Jesse Potter (Jesse)2 is a developmentally disabled adult.3 Jesse lived with his mother, Rosana Potter (Rosana), in a Van Nuys condominium. In 2006, Rosana established a revocable trust (the Potter trust) and transferred her interest in the Van Nuys condominium to the trust. The trust named Jesse and his sister, Annabelle Potter Krishel (Annabelle), as beneficiaries. The trust also designated Annabelle as the successor trustee upon Rosana’s death. Using a power of attorney she acquired over Rosana, Annabelle subsequently designated attorney Brett Barenholtz (Barenholtz) to act as successor trustee. Rosana died in August 2018. Following Rosana’s death, Jesse lived alone in the Van Nuys condominium. According to Barenholtz, the results were disastrous, and the condominium fell into disrepair, rendering it uninhabitable. Among the issues were extensive piles of trash littering the condominium, water damage caused by leaks, as well as cockroaches, mold, and noxious odors. Additionally, foreclosure notices were filed against the property stemming from Jesse’s failure to pay the mortgage or homeowners’