Bagish v. Sarraf CA2/4

── Bagish v. Sarraf CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 Bagish v. Sarraf CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ALAN BAGISH, B344027 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24STCV25438) v. VATCHE SARRAF, Defendant and Appellant, APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Dean J. Kitchens, Judge. Affirmed. The Bearman Firm and Ethan Bearman for Defendant and Appellant. Utzurrum Law Offices and Joe Utzurrum for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Alan Bagish was arrested after his neighbor, Vatche Sarraf, reported to law enforcement that Bagish threatened to “slash” him. Bagish, alleging the report was false, sued Sarraf for defamation and emotional distress. Sarraf appeals from the trial court’s order granting in part and denying in part his special motion to strike four of Bagish’s causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). He also challenges the denial of his request for attorney fees. We affirm. BACKGROUND A. Complaint The following relevant allegations appear in Bagish’s complaint. Sarraf lived across the street from Bagish and parked his vehicles near the seven-foot hedge growing in Bagish’s front yard. In early April 2024, Sarraf cut down the hedge without Bagish’s consent. On April 25, 2024, Sarraf falsely reported to law enforcement and neighbors that Bagish chased him, and while standing inches away said, “‘I’m going to slash you.’” Sheriff’s deputies arrested Bagish and handcuffed him in front of his home. However, no criminal complaint was ever filed. Bagish asserted causes of action for slander per se, conversion, trespass to chattel, intentional inflection of emotional distress (IIED), negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and injunctive relief. In the slander count, he alleged Sarraf made defamatory statements by reporting the alleged slashing 2 threat to police and neighbors.1 In the IIED and NIED counts, he alleged that Sarraf’s defamatory statements caused him emotional distress. B. Anti-SLAPP Motion 1. Sarraf’s Motion Sarraf filed an anti-SLAPP motion directed to the causes of action for slander, IIED, NIED, and injunctive relief. He argued these counts arose from protected conduct and, relevant to this appeal, were barred by the litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47, subd. (b)2). In his declaration, Sarraf described the parties’ acrimonious relationship. During an incident nine days before the arrest, Bagish allegedly yelled racist statements, threatened 1 Evidence in the record indicates that Sarraf reported two discrete acts of wrongdoing to law enforcement: (1) Bagish threw a rock that shattered the windshield of Sarraf’s truck and (2) made the “slashing” threat. Bagish was arrested on suspicion of both making a criminal threat and vandalism. His complaint, however, does not allege that the report of vandalism was defamatory. The “‘issues [to be determined] in an anti-SLAPP motion are framed by the pleadings,’” and “we will not ‘insert into a pleading claims for relief based on allegations of activities that plaintiffs simply have not identified . . . .’” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 883, italics omitted.)