October 11 , 2006

Contact:
Jan Book (Legal) - (310) 392-1426
Sheila Bernard (LPTA President) - (310) 871-6368
Email: info@lincolnplace.net

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL FILES AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LINCOLN PLACE TENANTS' RIGHT TO REDRESS THEIR GRIEVANCES

While AIMCO Forces Elderly and Disabled Tenants at Lincoln Place Out of Their Apartments, the California Attorney General Steps Forward to Say AIMCO Has Improperly Prevented the Lincoln Place Tenants From Having Their Day in Court

Who: Lincoln Place tenants vs. AIMCO

When: Thursday, Oct. 5, 2006

Where: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division 7

What: Attorney General of the State of California, Bill Lockyer, and the State Solicitor General, Manuel M. Medeiros, believe that "the judgment below should be reversed because the Trial Court applied the Anti-SLAPP statute in such a manner as to improperly frustrate" the tenants' "right to petition the courts for redress of their grievances."

VENICE, CA -- In July 2005, Frieda Marlin, an 82-year old resident of Lincoln Place apartments, and her disabled son filed a lawsuit for declaratory relief against their landlord, AIMCO (Apartment Investment Management Company), asking the court to
clarify how AIMCO was able to use the Ellis Act to evict them when AIMCO had promised not to evict any tenant at Lincoln Place in accordance with the redevelopment plan approved in 2002 by the City of Los Angeles.

To prevent the court from hearing the matter, AIMCO filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion claiming that the Marlins had infringed on AIMCO's first amendment right "to petition" when the Marlins filed their action for a declaration of their legal rights.  The right of "petition" which AIMCO claimed was the right to file the eviction notice with the L.A. Housing Department in March 2005.

As defined in the amicus brief, a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) "is a meritless lawsuit brought not to vindicate a right, but rather to obtain an advantage over another party through the burdens of litigation." It is a lawsuit filed to silence someone's rights to freedom of speech or to petition, or to punish them for exercising those rights.

The California "Anti-SLAPP" statute was intended to prevent "the bully" from intimidating "the little guy" with a SLAPP lawsuit by allowing the courts to dismiss meritless litigation. According to the statute, it is to prevent lawsuits which do not "arise from any act ... in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech ... in connection with a public issue."  However, there have been a string of Anti-SLAPP lawsuits filed by "the bully" to prevent "the little guy" from having their day in court resulting in the over-broad application of the Anti-SLAPP statute.

The Attorney General filed their amicus curiae brief in the Marlin case because they were concerned that the Anti-SLAPP statute itself "had become a mechanism to chill a party's exercise of her right to seek resolution of a bona fide controversy as to legal rights and obligations."

According to the amicus brief filed on Thursday, the lower court focused not on the underlying dispute between the parties, but rather on the procedural process that put into motion the action which caused the Marlins to question the legality of the underlying dispute.

In the Attorney General's words, "Not every suit that is 'triggered' by a defendant's petitioning or free speech activity 'arises from' such activity within the meaning of the statute. Likewise, a lawsuit does not 'arise from' a defendant's protected activity simply because it is filed after that activity occurs. Rather, to be a SLAPP suit, the cause of action must itself be based on the defendant's free speech or petitioning activity."  

The Marlins, as tenants of Lincoln Place, had a right to question why they were being evicted from their apartment and a legal right to seek clarification from the court. AIMCO's filing of city forms in preparation of eviction is not the type of free speech or petitioning activity protected by the First Amendment under the Anti-SLAPP law.

While the filing of the eviction notice may have "triggered" the Marlins to question the legality of the eviction, it was the eviction, not the notice, which the Marlins questioned. The Marlins' lawsuit against AIMCO was not a SLAPP lawsuit and therefore AIMCO should not have been able to prevent the Marlins from having their day in court.

"The use of the Anti-SLAPP motion by AIMCO was merely a delaying tactic," according to Sheila Bernard, the president of the LPTA.  

It is apparent to the tenants that AIMCO's goal is and was to keep the land entitlements it acquired from the City under the 2002 Tract Map (increased density and height variance), and to empty Lincoln Place of all tenants, thus circumventing the extensive tenant protection conditions required of them under the same Tract Map, the only approved redevelopment plan for Lincoln Place.

###

© Lincoln Place Tenants Association
Email: info@lincolnplace.net