Pleading 6001 Ca2b2f49 8563 4ba5 Ba05 92629dcf891c

User Manual: 6001

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 27

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD D. FARKAS

RICHARD D. FARKAS, ESQ. (State Bar No. 89157)

15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 504

Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Telephone: (818) 789-6001

Facsimile: (818) 789-6002

E-mail: RichardDF@aol.com

www.RichardFarkas.com

Attorneys for Defendant Louisa Moritz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YANA HENRIKS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOUISA MORITZ; VICTOR NOVAL;

TANIA NOVAL; and PHILIP

MARKOWITZ,

Defendants.

)

Case No.: 2:06-CV-05670-JFW-SH(x)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL

MOTION OF DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ

TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS A SLAPP

LAWSUIT AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

[C.C.P. § 425.16, 42 U.S.C. 1988; F.R.C.P

12(b)(6)]; SUPPORTING DECLARATION AND

EXHIBITS.

[DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS FILED

SEPARATELY.]

[This Motion is made following the conference of

counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7.3, which took place

on March 28, 2007.]

TRIAL DATE: August 7, 2007

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: None

HEARING DATE: May 7, 2007

HEARING TIME: 1:30 p.m.

PLACE: Courtroom of the

Hon. John F. Walter (Ctrm. 16)

TO PLAINTIFF YANA HENRIKS AND TO HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 7, 2007, in Courtroom 16 of the United States District

Court located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon

thereafter as counsel can be heard, Defendant LOUISA MORITZ will move this Court, pursuant to

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, 42 U.S.C. 1988, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) and other applicable Federal authority, for an Order dismissing Louisa Moritz from this

action, on the basis that no claim for relief under the RICO statute may be applied to Defendant

LOUISA MORITZ, and for an award of attorneys’ fees.

This Motion will be based upon this notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities

attached hereto, the Declaration of attorney Richard D. Farkas, accompanying exhibits, and upon all

of the records, pleadings and files in this matter, and upon such further arguments and evidence that

may be presented at the time of the hearing of this Motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Motion be granted, that the complaint against

MORITZ be dismissed, that Plaintiff take nothing by her complaint, and that MORITZ be awarded

her fees and costs in defending against this action.

Dated: June 8, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD D. FARKAS

By__________________________________

RICHARD D. FARKAS,

Attorneys for Defendant,

LOUISA MORITZ

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

I. INTRODUCTION

In her RICO lawsuit pending before this Court, Plaintiff YANA HENRIKS, by and through

her attorney, Philip Dapeer, does nothing but reiterate claims she has asserted in several state court

actions. Moving Party LOUISA MORITZ, an attorney, did nothing—and is alleged to have done

nothing—but represent some of the parties to some of those actions for several months. Based solely

on actions taken in the context of the state court cases, the litigious YANA HENRIKS has now

attempted to spin her previously-asserted state court claims into alleged violations of the Racketeer

Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq. Plaintiff’s RICO claim is

merely a regurgitation of the same allegations she has already presented on several separate

occasions.1 The activity plaintiff finds objectionable is defendant MORTIZ’s zealous—albeit

brief—representation of some of HENRICK’s adversaries in state court actions seeking to control a

family trust. The demonstrated lack of merit to plaintiff’s allegations indicates that this suit has been

brought solely to quell defendant MORITZ’s exercise of her constitutional rights to utilize the state

court legal system, to petition and speech, not to vindicate any valid claim.

Plaintiff’s action is a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) aimed at

interfering with defendants’ legitimate exercise of their First Amendment and statutory rights. This

Court must follow the mandate of 42 U.S.C. 1988(a) and apply the California anti-SLAPP statute

(C.C.P. § 425.16) in this action, to protect defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights of petition

and speech. F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), alternatively, would also mandate dismissal of this action.

As discussed below, SLAPP lawsuits frequently mask themselves as ordinary lawsuits.

Plaintiffs win political battles by dragging defendants into court and enmeshing them in protracted

litigation. (See Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815-818, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 (1994).)

The California Legislature recognized the chilling effect of SLAPPs on First Amendment rights

when it enacted section 425.16. Federal law does not provide anything analogous to the section

425.16 discovery stay and provisions for early termination of SLAPPs, but has ruled that these

1 See, e.g., Plaintiff’s RICO Case Statement, Exhibit C, in which many of the same claims were made to a

State Court judge. See, also, RICO Case Statement Exhibit F, pages 68 - 92

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

provisions made be utilized in the Federal courts. Therefore, this Court must apply section 425.16,

pursuant to section 1988. Because plaintiff cannot establish that there is a probability that she will

prevail on her claims, as required by section 425.16(b), this Court should grant defendant’s special

motion to strike, and award her attorneys’ fees as well.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A. THE PARTIES

i. LOUISA MORITZ

Defendant Louisa Moritz, who brings this motion, is an attorney, having been admitted to the

California State Bar in November, 2004. Ms. Moritz was retained by Tania Noval (another

Defendant named in this action, described below), as well as several of her family members with

respect to disputes concerning family trusts. The opposing party in these disputes is the Plaintiff,

Yana Henriks; Ms. Moritz never represented Ms. Henriks. Ms. Moritz briefly (from approximately

April, 2006 to September, 2006) represented members of the Noval family, having ceased

representing anyone in the Noval family in September, 2006, when she filed substitution of attorney

forms in all of the lawsuits involving the family.

ii. YANA HENRIKS

Plaintiff Yana Henriks, who filed the complaint against Ms. Moritz, is the former live-in

girlfriend of Victor Noval, the brother of Ms. Moritz’s client, Tania Noval. Ms. Henriks (also known

as Gayane Khachatryan), on April 23, 2004, replaced Tania Noval as Trustee of one of the Novals’

family trusts (Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust), and it was her role as Trustee that led to much of the

litigation in which Ms. Moritz was briefly involved.3 As detailed herein, Victor Noval, Tania Noval,

2 Defendant Moritz acknowledges that this Motion must address the sufficiency of the complaint

(and its accompanying RICO Case Statement). This section is intended solely to give the Court

some background of the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants, to make the otherwise confusing

pleadings more understandable. Defendant is not relying upon the facts in this introduction to

support its Motion to Dismiss.

3 As will be described herein, Ms. Henriks has filed a number of acrimonious charges against the

Noval family and people associated with it, in state and federal courts, and elsewhere. These charges

include applications for restraining orders, and countless claims of civil and criminal wrongdoing

and, in many cases, are substantially identical to her claims in this RICO action.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

and all of Victor Noval’s children (the beneficiaries of the Brothers Irrevocable Trust) requested that

Ms. Henriks step aside as Trustee. Disputes concerning Ms. Henriks’ role as trustee led to much of

the litigation in this complex matter.

iii. TANIA NOVAL

Tania Noval, Ms. Moritz’s former client, is the sister of Victor Noval, and the Settlor,

Trustor, and original trustee to the Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust. Tania Noval, therefore is the aunt of

Victor Noval’s children, who, with her own son, are the beneficiaries of the Brothers’ Irrevocable

Trust. In 2003, during illness of Tania Noval, and while Yana Henriks was romantically involved

with Victor Noval, Yana Henriks assumed the role of Trustee of the Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust.4

The relationship between Victor Noval and Yana Henriks later ended (bitterly), and the Noval family

(Victor, Tania, Tania’s son, and Victor’s children—the beneficiaries) have sought to replace Ms.

Henriks as the Trustee of the family trust. Ms. Henriks has refused, rather engaging in litigation

against the Novals in several courts.

iv. VICTOR NOVAL

As indicated above, Victor Noval is the brother of Tania Noval, the original Trustee of the

Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust. He is also the father of Victor Franco, Jon Hunter, Jake Harrison, and

Victor Peter Noval, beneficiaries of the Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust, and the uncle of Bijan

Nasehipour, the other beneficiary (and Tania Noval’s son). Victor Noval was once romantically

involved with Yana Henriks. He was also, several years ago, indicted and later incarcerated in

connection with a criminal matter concerning his business (unrelated to and long before the

representation by Ms. Moritz). When Mr. Noval was defending himself in the criminal action, he

had Ms. Henriks—then his girlfriend—assume the role of Trustee of the Trust, of which his children

and nephew were beneficiaries. Mr. Noval’s romantic relationship with Yana Henriks subsequently

4 As Tania Noval stated in a May 10, 2006 declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, “In late 2003, I

started to have severe rheumatoid arthritis and was be unable to take care of the Trust’s business. I

explained my problem to Yana Henriks, and she assured me that she would be the person most

qualified to be successor trustee during my illness. She informed me of her educational background

and her high position with her employer, Met Life. As a girlfriend of my brother, she was also

believed to be the future stepmother to my nephews, which I stated above, are the beneficiaries of the

Trust.” [Tania Noval Declaration, May 10, 2006, paragraph 3.]

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

ended, and resulted in several personal and professional conflicts, including disputes concerning her

continued role as Trustee of the trust established for the benefit of his minor children.5

B. THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS

As will be illustrated herein, all of the claims brought against Attorney Moritz by Plaintiff

Yana Henriks relate to Ms. Moritz’s filings in several other lawsuits (and communications made in

those actions), on behalf of her clients. The litigation privilege applies in each of these underlying

lawsuits:

i. BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, YANA HENRIKS vs. VICTOR NOVAL,

TANIA NOVAL, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 349115

This declaratory relief action (first referenced in Plaintiff’s RICO Case Statement at page 8,

lines 12-19) was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 16, 2006 by Yana Henriks and

Blue Water Sunset, LLC, an entity formed by Victor Noval for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the

Brothers Irrevocable Trust. The complaint against Victor and Tania Noval alleges that “An actual

dispute and controversy new [sic] exists as between plaintiff and defendants concerning their

respective rights and duties relative to the defense of plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC….” [A copy

of this declaratory relief action is attached hereto as Exhibit B.] Louisa Moritz was retained to

represent Tania Noval in this case, and represented her through September 12, 2006, when she

substituted out.

In response to the complaint in this action, Tania Noval filed a cross-complaint against Yana

Henriks, attached hereto as Exhibit D. In her cross-complaint, filed by Louisa Moritz, Tania Noval

alleged “Cross-Defendant GAYANE KHACHATRYAN [a.k.a. Yana Henriks] assumed

management and control of BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C., as well as the BROTHERS’

IRREVOCABLE TRUST through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, as described herein, and

5 The extent of the animosity between Victor Noval and Yana Henriks is evidenced by Victor

Noval’s May 3, 2006 “Answer to Request for Orders to Stop Harassment (in case number BS

102745), in which he declared that “Henriks has told me that she will dedicate her life to ruining

mine and that since she is on disability she has all the time in the world to ruin my life.” [Exhibit C.]

He further alleged, among other things, that Henriks committed insurance fraud, threatened violence

toward him and third parties, and caused him to be “afraid for my life and the life of my family.”

[Exhibit C, page 6.]

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

thereafter mismanaged these entities and utilized their assets for her personal gain.” [Tania Noval’s

Cross-complaint ¶ 5. A copy of Tania Noval’s cross-complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit D.] The

lengthy cross-complaint further alleged:

“Cross-Defendant GAYANE KHACHATRYAN, and her attorney, PHILIP DA PEER, ESQ.,

prepared all the documents for the alleged “transfer” of BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C.,

through a $100 “bill of sale”, which they attempted to have TANIA NOVAL, Cross-

Complainant, sign the final copy, and which they explained to TANIA through others they

(Cross-Defendant and her attorney PHILIP DA PEER, ESQ.) needed for the Cross-Defendant

GAYANE KHACHATRYAN, to get standing to sue or represent the LLC in litigation which

BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C. was involved in, and after the litigation was completed,

this “transfer” would be voidable and rescindable at will by Cross-Complainant and Cross-

Defendant would immediately surrender possession and control over BLUE WATER

SUNSET, L.L.C., and return it to Cross-Complainant TANIA NOVAL, who would in turn

deed it over to BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, A TRUST formed for the children of

TANIA NOVAL and VICTOR NOVAL.” [Tania Noval cross-complaint, Exhibit D, ¶ 11.]

The disputed agreement described in the preceding paragraph is also relevant to the

contention of Ms. Henriks that Ms. Moritz presented a forged or altered exhibit, discussed below.

Victor Noval, then acting in pro per, also filed a similar cross-complaint against Yana

Henriks. [A copy of Victor Noval’s cross-complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit E.] Mr. Noval’s

cross-complaint against Ms. Henriks set forth causes of action for Breach of Written Contracts,

Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Relations, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good

Faith and Fair Dealing, Unfair Business Practices, Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud, Negligent

Misrepresentation, Declaratory Relief, Extortion, Accounting, Declaration of Constructive Trust, and

Removal and Surcharge of Trustee.

In the introductory portion of his cross-complaint against Ms. Henriks, Mr. Noval alleged the

following:

“10. This litigation relates to TANIA NOVAL, BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C.,

property of BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, of which TANIA NOVAL, Cross-

Complainant is the Trustee.

“11. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Cross-

Defendant GAYANE KHACHATRYAN [another name of Yana Henriks], and her attorney,

Cross-defendant PHILIP DAPEER, prepared documents for an alleged “transfer” of BLUE

WATER SUNSET, L.L.C., through a $100 “bill of sale.” BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C.

was an asset belonging to BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST. Cross-defendants

DAPEER and KHACHATRYAN conspired to have KHACHATRYAN hold title to BLUE

WATER SUNSET (and other assets) as trustee in constructive trust for BROTHERS

IRREVOCABLE TRUST, with the understanding that the asset would be returned to

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST upon the completion of pending litigation.

Accordingly, DAPEER and KHACHATRYAN attempted to have TANIA NOVAL, sign

documents to effectuate this transfer, explaining to TANIA through others they (Cross-

Defendant KHACHATRYAN and her attorney PHILIP DAPEER, ESQ.) needed for the

Cross-Defendant GAYANE KHACHATRYAN, to get standing to sue or represent the LLC

in litigation which BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C. was involved in. After the litigation

was completed, this “transfer” would be voidable and rescindable at will by TANIA NOVAL

and Cross-Defendant KHACHATRYAN would immediately surrender possession and

control over BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C., and return it to Cross-Complainant TANIA

NOVAL, who would in turn deed it over to BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, a trust

formed for the children of TANIA NOVAL and VICTOR NOVAL.

“12. The facts are that Cross-Complainant TANIA NOVAL never signed the final

documentation to effectuate the transfer. In effect, KHACHATRYAN acquired a multi-

million dollar asset for $100.00.

“13. Attorney PHILIP DAPEER explained to Cross-Complainant that the “transfer”,

which TANIA NOVAL did not sign, was solely to complete the litigation, which was for the

benefit of BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C. and that Cross-Defendant GAYANE

KHACHATRYAN and himself were the persons best qualified to perform this legal work,

since GAYANE KHACHATRYAN was in her own words “a great litigator” and she would

immediately return the ownership of the properties involved to Cross-Complainant TANIA

NOVAL. The beneficiaries of BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST were the children of

TANIA NOVAL and her brother VICTOR.” [Victor Noval cross-complaint, Exhibit E, ¶s

10-13.]

In a sworn declaration filed in this action, Tania Noval stated, among other things that Ms.

Henriks engaged in “self-dealing” and “wasted and misappropriated valuable Trust assets.” [A copy

of her Declaration is attached as Exhibit A.] To properly understand the claims of the Noval family

(advanced through the representation of Ms. Moritz), the substantive assertions of Ms. Tania Noval

(in her May 10, 2006 declaration) are set forth at length below:

“2. My name is Tania Noval. I am the Settlor, Trustor and original trustee to the

Brothers Irrevocable Trust (hereafter the “Trust”). This trust was set up for the benefit of my

son and nephews, who are the only beneficiaries of the Trust. This declaration is submitted

in support of the Petition to remove Yana Henriks as Trustee of the Trust, and for related

relief.

“3. In late 2003, I started to have severe rheumatoid arthritis and was unable to take

care of the Trust’s business. I explained my problem to Yana Henriks, and she assured me

that she would be the person most qualified to be successor trustee during my illness. She

informed me of her educational background and her high position with her employer, Met

Life. As a girlfriend of my brother, she was also believed to be the future stepmother to my

nephews, which I stated above, are the beneficiaries of the Trust. Given her excellent

personal history I believed that she indeed would be a trustworthy individual to handle the

future well being of my son and nephews.

“4. I was wrong about Ms. Henriks. She is claiming that Blue Water Sunset L.L.C. is

her property. This is false. This L.L.C. was formed for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and it

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

was to be placed in the trust once certain litigation ended. She has tried to sell this L.L.C.

and/or its valuable assets belonging to the trust.

“5. Yana Henriks has ignored numerous requests made by the beneficiaries regarding

accounting and the sale of a Mustang belonging to beneficiary Victor Franco Noval.

“6. Ms. Henriks has been asked (by me, as Settlor, and by all of the beneficiaries,

whose declarations are attached to this Petition) to step down and turn over her position as

Trustee. She has not only completely ignored this but also wrote a letter to my attorney

Louisa Moritz (attached to the Petition) insulting her practice and making false statements.

“7. Henriks wrote letters to my brother telling him that his children (beneficiaries)

don’t care about him and that they do not deserve anything.

“8. Henriks is in the bad habit of threatening people and is well known for

threatening attorneys with reporting them to the bar.

“9. I have personally heard a cassette tape where Henriks threatens my brother. Yana

Henriks has also called our friend Heather Mercado and threatened her life.

“10. Henriks falsely claims that my brother abused her. My brother was married

twice about 10 years each and has never abused mentally or physically his wives or anyone

else.

“11. Henriks has sent me letters via fax insulting me and telling me to “Fasten your

seatbelt”.

“12. Henriks wrote letters to my brother in which she says she is an attorney. (See

attached copy of envelope.)

“13. My brother told me that, after learning of Henriks’ misdeeds, he decided not to

marry her. This resulted in enormous animosity, causing significant harm to the Trust, me,

and the beneficiaries.

“14. My brother applied for a restraining order against Henriks. Upon being notified

of the order, Henriks immediately rushed to the court and sought a restraining order against

my brother who is the father to four of the beneficiaries.

“15. In addition to the foregoing, I am aware of the following acts of Ms. Henriks, to

the detriment of the Trust:

-- She had not made any distributions to the beneficiaries, and has not

communicated with the beneficiaries;

-- She has never provided an accounting relative to the Trust;

-- She has wasted and misappropriated valuable Trust assets;

-- She has initiated litigation against me, as well as against the father of the

beneficiaries (her former boyfriend);

-- She claims to have personally acquired millions of dollars worth of assets

belonging to the Trust for negligible consideration (i.e., $100.00);

-- She has engaged in self-dealing, to the detriment of the Trust and its

beneficiaries;

-- She has filed a restraining order application against the father of some of the

beneficiaries, without good cause;

-- She is assisting, without good cause, through a sham forcible detainer

action, to evict one or more of the beneficiaries from their rightful home;

-- She has threatened our attorney in this action.

“16. The beneficiaries and I all request the court to reinstate my position as trustee.

We have all requested that Ms. Henriks step aside (in writing, attached to this Petition), and

she has failed and refused to do so.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

“17. I have the best interest of my son and nephews at heart, and hereby request the

court to reinstate my original position as trustee to Brothers Irrevocable Trust. We would all

like to have this woman out of our lives forever.” [Tania Noval declaration, May 10, 2006,

Exhibit A.]

ii. IN THE MATTER OF THE BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST

(Case Number SP006830)

This action was filed in the Probate Court on May 26, 2006 by the Brothers Irrevocable

Trust, acting by and through Tania Noval (represented by Louisa Moritz).6 [A copy of Tania

Noval’s probate filing is attached hereto as Exhibit F.] As noted above, in this action, Tania Noval

declared: “The beneficiaries and I all request the court to reinstate my position as trustee. We have

all requested that Ms. Henriks step aside (in writing, attached to this Petition), and she has failed and

refused to do so. I have the best interest of my son and nephews at heart, and hereby request the

court to reinstate my original position as trustee to Brothers Irrevocable Trust.” [Tania Noval

declaration, Exhibit A, ¶s 16, 17.]

The Petition filed by Ms. Moritz in this case was brought pursuant to the California Probate

Code Section 15404, which provides: “Modification or Termination by Settlor and All Beneficiaries.

(a) If the settlor and all beneficiaries of a trust consent, THEY MAY COMPEL THE

MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF THE TRUST.” (Emphasis added.) Attached to the

Petition were the sworn Declarations of the Settlor of this trust (Tania Noval) and all of the

beneficiaries of the Brothers Irrevocable Trust in support of this Petition. Also attached to this

Petition were documents evidencing the requests of the Settlor and all of the Beneficiaries, that Yana

Henricks step down as acting Trustee, and additional documents evidencing the failure and refusal of

Yana Henriks to do so, which necessitated this Petition.

iii. CONSTANTINO NOVAL vs. VICTOR NOVAL (Case Number SC

089359)

6 In her RICO Case Statement, Plaintiff HENRIKS claims that “The Novals, through their attorney,

Louisa Moritz retaliated by initiating probate proceedings in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking

to remove Yana Henriks as successor trustee of the Brothers Irrevocable Trust.” [RICO Case

Statement, page 8, lines 16-19.]

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

This action was a “forcible detainer” complaint filed against Victor Noval (Tania Noval’s

brother) by Victor Noval’s uncle, Constantino Noval.7 Initially, and for a very brief period of time,

Louisa Moritz represented Mr. Noval in this case (she filed a demurrer to the complaint on April 21,

2006, and substituted out on May 31, 2006).

In this action, Victor Noval argued that, although the Plaintiff alleged he was the owner of

the subject residential unit, the Plaintiff obtained title to the property as trustee of a family trust for

the benefit of Defendant’s children. Defendant Victor Noval began occupying the premises upon its

completion in May 2000, and the only occupants of the unit since that time had been Defendant

Victor Noval, Defendant’s wife and children, and (following Defendant’s divorce), Defendant’s

then-girlfriend, Yana Henriks, who had moved out. Plaintiff, who held title only as trustee, had

never occupied the unit since it was completed in May, 2000.

iv. BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST vs. CONSTANTINO NOVAL,

etc., et al. (Case Number SC 089394)

This case, too, concerns disputes concerning the administration of the Brothers Irrevocable

Trust, as well as who, as Trustee, has the power to administer the Trust. The lawsuit was filed on

April 19, 2006, and was brought by the Law Offices of Louisa Moritz as “Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

the Beneficiaries of Brothers Irrevocable Trusts, BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, a

California Trust.” [Complaint, page 1, lines 3, 4.] [A copy of this complaint is attached hereto as

Exhibit G.]

The suit alleges, among other things, that “During 1999, Victor and TANIA NOVAL desired

to establish a trust to acquire and hold real estate and the income, earning and proceeds thereof for

their grandchildren and children respectively. Victorino contributed $1,000,000.00 to the trust,

Shirley DaSilva (Victor’s ex-wife) contributed $62,500.00 and Victor NOVAL contributed

$57,000.00 for a total contribution of $1,119,500.00 to the Brothers Trust. The funds were

transferred to Constantino to buy real estate for the benefit of a trust to set up for the Beneficiaries.

Although repeated assurances were made by DEFENDANT CONSTANTINO, DEFENDANT

7 As noted below, Tania Noval’s son declared that this action to evict Victor Noval was engineered

by Yana Henriks.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

CONSTANTINO never established the trust and, in spite of his promises, used the funds to purchase

seven properties….” [Complaint, Exhibit G, ¶ 10 page 3, line 27 through page 4, line 7.] The suit

then alleges that “Defendant Constantino has made false and intentional misrepresentations to Victor

and TANIA NOVAL in that he intended to set up trust to hold the assets and Property for the benefit

of the beneficiaries,” [Exhibit G, ¶ 13, page 5], and that “The true facts are that … DEFENDANT

was not intending to hold the Assets and Property for the beneficiaries.” [Exhibit G, ¶ 13, page 5.]

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. MI SUK YI AND PAUL

AMORELLO (United States District Court No. 03-406(B)-CAS)

This is an action in which the family trustee asserted an interest in certain property before the

federal court. Ms. Moritz was never an attorney of record and never appeared as attorney of record

for any party in this case, although she did make a single appearance at a hearing on May 19, 2006.

This hearing was to resolve certain procedural matters following the withdrawal of the forfeiture

attorney representing the trust in that action, and Ms. Moritz appeared to advise the Federal Court of

the status of the disputed trust matters pending in the State Court actions. [A copy of the transcript

of this May 19, 2006 hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit H.]

* * *

C. THE CLAIMS OF YANA HENRIKS IN THE RICO COMPLAINT AND RICO CASE

STATEMENT.

With the general background of the various lawsuits involving Complainant Yana Henriks

described above, Defendant MORITZ will now attempt to address the specific claims of Ms. Henriks

in her RICO complaint as it applies to Defendant Ms. Moritz. As will become apparent, every

action allegedly taken by Defendant Moritz was as an attorney, in connection with pleadings

and statements presented in pending litigation, all of which are protected by the litigation

privilege.

 “With respect to the federal forfeiture proceedings, attorney Moritz appeared in the action

and falsely represented to the court that plaintiff Henriks had been removed as trustee of

the Brothers Irrevocable Trust.” [RICO Case Statement, page 10, line 27 through page

11, line 3.]

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

The hearing to which Ms. Henriks referred was in the federal case of United States of

America vs. Mi Suk Yi and Paul Amorello, Case number CR 03-406(b)-CAS. [RICO Case Statement,

page 4, lines 14-16.] Ms. Moritz is not, and never has been, an attorney for any of the litigants in

this federal forfeiture case.

At the hearing of May 19, 2006, an issue was whether the petitioner, Brothers Irrevocable

Trust, was a bona fide purchaser for value of certain property. The Trust was a party to that action,

and, on the date of the hearing, Yana Henriks apparently attempted to appear without counsel (prior

counsel for the trust had withdrawn because of a conflict of interest, related to the conflicting claims

concerning the trust of Yana Henriks and Tania Noval). At that hearing, the Court said to Ms.

Henriks: “Ms. Hendriks [sic], we’re going to have [sic] direct you to retain counsel. You can’t

represent yourself. You can’t appear pro se under the rules of the court.” [Exhibit H, page 5, line 23

through page 6, line 1.]

Ms. Moritz, upon the request of her client Tania Noval (who, as noted above, asserts that she

is the Trustee of the Brothers Irrevocable Trust), also appeared at the Federal Court hearing to advise

the Court of the position of the Trust (which, because of the withdrawal of the Trust’s forfeiture

attorney, was unrepresented by counsel).8 Ms. Moritz introduced herself as follows, according to the

transcript: “Your honor, my [name] is Louisa Maritz [sic] and I am representing the trustee of the

brothers irrevocable trust.” [page 12, lines 2-4.] She then advised the Court of her role: “I am only

here to request a continuance because there is a question about the brothers irrevocable trust and the

attorney has resigned and withdrawn and I understand that Your Honor has allowed it and so they are

without an attorney.” [Exhibit H, page 12, lines 16-20.]

Ms. Noval did not make a misrepresentation to the Court as claimed by Ms. Henriks. In the

time she was allotted, she explained that there was a petition to remove Ms. Henriks. The transcript

states: “Okay. Your Honor we do have an order9 from the court and we have made—I am the

8 It should be noted that Ms. Noval was never “removed” as trustee. Rather, as she declared, she

resigned because “In late 2003, I started to have severe rheumatoid arthritis and was unable to take

care of the Trust’s business.” [Exhibit A, ¶3.]

9 As noted below, Ms. Moritz’s reference to an “order” was to the state court’s order appointing a

guardian ad litem in the brothers irrevocable trust case.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

attorney for the present trustee Tanya Noval and we have made a petition to remove the previous

trustee.” [page 13, lines 10-13.] The Court clearly understood that the litigation concerning the

actual trustee was unresolved, and pending in the state court. Specifically, the Court responded:

“Well, you’ll do that over in another court…. Obviously there is a dispute between the Novals and

the current trustee. I’m well aware of that and you’re going to have to get that problem resolved

across the street because I am going to proceed with my case on my schedule and not sit around and

wait for this matter to be resolved over in state court.” [Exhibit H, page 13, lines 14-21.] Ms. Moritz

then responded, accurately, “Well, we have an ex parte application for next Friday.” [Exhibit H,

page 13, lines 22-23.]

Ms. Moritz, after this hearing, never again appeared in this federal action and, to Defendant’s

knowledge, the issue as to the appropriate trustee has never again been raised in that court. The

Trustee disputes continue to be litigated.

 “She [Ms Henriks] has also initiated another lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court

on behalf of The Brothers Irrevocable Trust against Victor’s uncle, case number

SC089394 That [sic] action was brought without my [sic] knowledge or consent as the

trustee.” [RICO Case Statement, page 11, lines 3-7.]

The factual background of this litigation is described above. Although Ms. Moritz filed this

action as “Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Beneficiaries of Brothers Irrevocable Trusts, BROTHERS

IRREVOCABLE TRUST, a California Trust,” there was no “misrepresentation” concerning her

role.10 To the contrary, Ms. Moritz filed this action with the express consent of Tania Noval (who

asserted her role as Trustee in then-pending case number SP 006830) and the beneficiaries

themselves, who oppose the actions of Yana Henriks.11

10 In her RICO Case Statement, Ms. Henriks writes: “attorney Moritz appeared in the action and

falsely represented to the court that plaintiff Henriks had been removed as the trustee of The

Brothers Irrevocable Trust.” [RICO Case Statement, page 10, line 28 through page 11, line 3.]

11 On April 6, 2006, all five (5) of the young beneficiaries of the Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust signed

a document stating that they “hereby agree and assent to the rescission of the above cited document

[rescinding Tania Noval’s resignation] and to the removal of Yana Henriks … as Trustee of the

Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust and further agree and assent to the immediate reinstatement of Tania

Noval as Trustee of the Brothers’ Irrevocable Trust effective April 6, 2006.” [Exhibit I.]

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

The authority of Ms. Moritz to act for Tania Noval is not disputed, and it is clear from the

pleadings and Tania Noval’s declaration (above) that Tania Noval maintains that she is the legal

Trustee. The position is supported by the beneficiaries as well. For example, attached to the Answer

of Victor Noval to Ms. Henriks’ restraining order application is a Declaration of Tania Noval’s son,

Bijan Nasehipour, who states that Yana Henriks “Is trying to get back at him [Victor Noval] by

hurting me and his sons.” Concerning the “forcible detainer” action filed against Victor Noval, 21-

year-old Bijan declared that “I saw a letter where Yana Henriks says she’s going to evict us from our

condo in Marina del Rey. She knows this condo belongs to our trust and she has absolutely no right

to do this.” He further declares that “All the beneficiaries sent a letter to Yana Henriks requesting

documents, accounting and information… and she has completely ignored our request. We also

asked her to remove herself as trustee and she has ignored this too.”

As noted above, in seeking to remove Ms. Henriks as Trustee, Ms. Moritz relied, in part, on

California Probate Code Section 15404, which provides for “Modification or Termination by Settlor

and All Beneficiaries.” The desires of Ms. Moritz’s client, Tania Noval, were properly advanced by

Ms. Moritz, and supported by Tania Noval, as evidenced by her Declaration. The desire of the

beneficiaries is similarly supported by Mr. Nasehipour’s declaration, in which he concludes: “I know

that having Yana Henriks as trustee of our trust will be detrimental to all the beneficiaries well being.

I would like my mother, Tania Noval to resume her position as trustee.” [Exhibit C, page 12.]

 “Defendants filed with the court what purported to be a letter in the handwriting of Victor

Noval and signed by plaintiff Yana Henriks wherein plaintiff Yana Henriks allegedly

agreed that she was holding her ownership interest in Blue Water Sunset, L.L.C. in a

representative capacity. That document, upon examination by a forensic hand-writing

expert, is a forgery….” [RICO Case Statement, page 9, lines 19-27.]

Ms. Henriks, in asserting presentation of an altered or forged exhibit, is referring to a dispute

concerning the validity of the signature on an undated, handwritten letter produced by Victor Noval,

purporting to bear the signature of Yana Henriks. This letter concludes with a statement that “I,

Yana Henriks, will transfer BWS [presumably Blue Water Sunset, an asset which is the subject of

the litigation] to Brothers Trust after litigation with Phil is over. The $100 transfer is only being

done so Yana can have standing in court with [illegible]. This is a confidential memo and will not be

disclosed.” This document, obtained by Ms. Moritz from her client, appears to contain the signature

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

of Yana Henriks, and states, in part, that Ms. Henriks would transfer one of the contested assets to

the Brothers Irrevocable Trust, as Ms. Moritz’s client maintained. Ms. Henriks, in this litigation,

denied that this was her signature. [A copy of the disputed letter is attached hereto as Exhibit J, and

to Plaintiff’s RICO Case Statement, Exhibit I, page 171.]

Ms. Moritz vehemently denies that she ever knowingly presented a forged or altered exhibit,

to the Court or to any other party. In this hotly-contested litigation, in which all parties claim the

others have committed criminal and tortuous acts, the validity of the handwritten letter is a matter of

dispute. Victor Noval declared that the statements of Yana Henriks “were false, in that Cross-

Defendant GAYANE KHACHATRYAN [Yana Henriks] did not intend to step aside as represented.

To the contrary, Cross-Defendant GAYANE KHACHATRYAN planned to appropriate for herself

the property owned by BLUE WATER SUNSET, L.L.C., an interest adverse to Beneficiaries of

BROTHERS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, and information presented by Cross-defendant to Cross-

Complainant to the contrary was false and fraudulent.” [see, e.g., Exhibit E, ¶48.] With respect to

this particular document, after its authenticity was challenged, Ms. Moritz retained Joe B. Alexander,

M.D., a medical doctor and Certified Forensic Document Examiner. This professional handwriting

expert evaluated the document and concluded (under penalty of perjury) that “It is my professional

opinion, as a Certified Forensic Document Examiner, that the signature on the questioned document

has significant similarities to the signature of the author that penned the known comparison

documents, and I am therefore clearly convinced that in fact, Yana Hendricks is the author of the

signature on the questioned handwritten letter.” [Exhibit K, ¶ 6.] Dr. Alexander also declared: “It is

my further opinion that the signature on the questioned document shows the effects of medication

and/or intentional disguise such as signing with the non-dominant hand possible in order to disavow

the authorship at a later date.” [Exhibit K, ¶ 7.] Although Ms. Henriks, too, obtained a handwriting

expert who rendered a contrary opinion, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Moritz in any way

presented evidence that was altered or forged, with knowledge that it was anything other than

genuine. To the contrary, Ms. Moritz advanced the sworn assertions of her client, in addition to

Victor Noval (who produced the letter), and the Certified Forensic Document Examiner.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

In any event, it is clear that every action alleged to have been done by Defendant MORITZ

was in her capacity as an attorney, filing pleadings and presenting evidence on behalf of her clients.12

Such actions cannot form the basis for a RICO claim, and must be dismissed pursuant to the

authorities presented herein.

III. 42 U.S.C. 1988 REQUIRES APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 IN THIS CASE. 13

42 U.S.C. 1988(a) provides:

The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the courts by the provisions of

titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United

States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in

conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the

same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in

the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the

common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein

the court having jurisdiction is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the

Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in

the trial and disposition of the cause, and if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of

punishment on the party found guilty. [Emphasis added.]14

12 Indeed, this is confirmed by even a cursory review of Henriks’ RICO Case Statement. She

contends that “Moritz was involved in several litigation matters….” [RICO Case Statement, page 2,

lines 19-20.] She states that Moritz “became directly involved in the dissolution action, the

declaratory relief action and the probate proceeds as attorney….” [RICO Case Statement, page 2,

lines 24-26.] She states that Moritz presented documents “to the Los Angeles Superior Court….”

[RICO Case Statement, page 2, line 27.] Elsewhere, she asserts that Moritz’s arguments were

“asserted in judicial proceedings.” [RICO Case Statement, page 7, lines 22-23.] She then states that

“attorney, Louisa Moritz, retaliated by initiating probate proceedings in the Los Angeles Superior

Court….” [RICO Case Statement, page 8, lines 16-18.] Enumerating the alleged “racketeering acts,”

Henriks merely asserts that Moritz “filed an altered trust agreement in the probate proceedings,”

[RICO Case Statement, page 9, lines 11-12], “filed with the court what purported to be a letter,”

[RICO Case Statement, page 9, lines 20-21], “filed [cross-complaints] in the declaratory relief

action” [RICO Case Statement, page 10, lines 23-24], “appeared in the action,” [RICO Case

Statement, page 10, line 28] and “Moritz filed a lis pendens.” [RICO Case Statement, page 11, line

8.] These are, on their face, privileged actions that cannot proceed through Plaintiff’s SLAPP

lawsuit.

13 “California’s Anti-SLAPP provisions may be applied to pendant state law claims in federal

question cases.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (N.

D. Cal. 1999)

14 Section 1988 was enacted to "fill in the gaps" in federal law in order to provide the widest

possible protection for civil rights. As the United States Supreme Court observed in Robertson v.

Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 591 (1978), "This statute recognizes that in certain areas federal law is

unsuited or insufficient to furnish suitable remedies."

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

A. THE INSIDIOUS NATURE OF SLAPPS REQUIRES A MECHANISM

TAILORED TO CURBING THEIR HARMFUL EFFECTS ON FIRST AMENDMENT

RIGHTS.

SLAPPs are lawsuits aimed at silencing a plaintiff’s opponents. The purpose of a SLAPP is

not to win, but to intimidate the SLAPP defendant and to chill petition and/or free speech rights. The

court in Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 816, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 (1994), explained

the characteristics of SLAPP suits as follows:

SLAPP suits are brought to obtain an economic advantage over the defendant, not to

vindicate a legally cognizable right of the plaintiff. Indeed, one of the common characteristics

of a SLAPP suit is its lack of merit. But lack of merit is not of concern to the plaintiff

because the plaintiff does not expect to succeed in the lawsuit; only to tie up the defendants’

resources for a sufficient length of time to accomplish plaintiff’s underlying objective. As

long as the defendant is forced to devote its time, energy and financial resources to

combating the lawsuit, its ability to combat the plaintiff in the political arena is substantially

diminished. [Citations omitted]

Thus, while SLAPP suits “masquerade as ordinary lawsuits,” the conceptual features which

reveal them as SLAPPs are that they are generally meritless suits brought by large private interests to

deter common citizens from exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for doing so.

[Citations omitted]

Therefore, since plaintiffs who bring SLAPPs can “win” simply by dragging victims into

court and draining their (and the courts’) resources, these suits must be identified and dismissed at

the earliest possible moment.

As the court noted in Wilcox, supra, the California Legislature was aware that pleading-based

motions such as demurrers and motions to strike are ineffective in dealing with SLAPPs because a

plaintiff may satisfy basic pleading requirements by making constitutionally protected behavior

appear as defamation, interference with business relations, or restraint of trade. Therefore, the

Legislature provided that in the special anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the court is to consider, in

addition to the pleadings, supporting and opposing affidavits stating facts upon which the liability or

defense is based. (C.C.P. s. 425.16(b), See also Wilcox, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at 822.)

B. THIS COURT MUST LOOK TO CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW AS MODIFIED

AND CHANGED IN ITS STATUTES AND CONSTITUTION.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

As discussed above, the federal court is to look to the state law reflected in the statutes and

constitution of the state. Here, the California anti-SLAPP statute specifically addresses the gap in

federal law by providing a “suitable remedy” against SLAPPs by providing a discovery stay and

early termination of the claim. The California Legislature recognized both the growth of SLAPP

suits and the ineffectiveness of existing California procedures, such as motions to strike and motions

for summary judgment. (Wilcox, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at 820.)

In response to the need to protect the rights of speech and petition, in 1992 the Legislature

overwhelmingly passed section 425.16, which provides that any cause of action arising from a

defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to petition the government or to speak out in

connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike unless the plaintiff can

establish that it has a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claims.

The purpose of section 425.16 is set forth in subsection (a) of the statute:

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits

brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech

and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the

public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that

this participation should not be chilled through the judicial process.

Speed is of the essence in dealing with SLAPPs, as it is whenever First Amendment rights

are in jeopardy. (Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of

Culinary Workers, 542 F.2d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 1976) (when complaint seeks to suppress or punish

First Amendment rights it should be “properly nipped in the bud by the trial judge”).) California’s

anti-SLAPP legislation provides an accelerated review process for potential SLAPP suits previously

unavailable under California law.15

The California Legislature further provided that, in the absence of good cause shown, SLAPP

plaintiffs would be required to establish the merits of their claims before any discovery is taken. This

15 A special motion to strike may be filed within sixty days of service of the complaint or at any

later time in the court’s discretion, and the motion will be heard within thirty days after service

unless the docket condition of the court requires a later hearing. (C.C.P. s. 425.16(f), (g).) This

Court, on March 21, 2007, granted Defendant’s motion to vacate her default, and directed Defendant

to file a responsive pleading by April 9, 2007; a 12(b)(6) or Anti-SLAPP motion, therefore, is timely.

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

stay on discovery was adopted in response to the common strategy of SLAPP plaintiffs to attempt to

dredge up after-the-fact justifications for meritless suits as part of an overall tactic to punish

opponents for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. Thus, section 425.16 provides a tailor-

made response to SLAPP suits to deal with their pernicious effects.

IV. DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE MUST BE GRANTED BECAUSE

HER ACTIVITIES WERE IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR HER RIGHTS (AND THE

RIGHTS OF HER CLIENTS) TO PETITION AND SPEECH, PROTECTED BY THE

CALIFORNIA LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, AND BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW

A PROBABILITY THAT SHE WILL PREVAIL ON HER CLAIM.

California cases applying section 425.16 have established a two-pronged analysis, as follows:

1. To come within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute, defendants must make a prima

facie showing that plaintiff’s causes of action “arise from any act of [defendants] in furtherance of

[defendants’] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in

connection with a public issue.”

2. The burden then shifts to plaintiff to show that “there is a probability that the plaintiff will

prevail on the claim.” 16

A. PLAINTIFF’S RICO CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES SOLELY FROM ACTS IN

FURTHERANCE OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND PETITION.

Included in the definition of an “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free

speech” are the following:

[1] Any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial

proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; [2] any written or oral

statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a

legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or

[3] any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public

forum in connection with an issue of public interest.17

B. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16 APPLIES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S

CLAIM ARISES FROM PRIVILEGED ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 425.16.

16 (C.C.P. s. 425.16(b); Dixon v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687, 695-97

(1994); Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 820-24, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 (1994).) The

point of the anti-SLAPP statute is to prevent the inevitable chill on free speech and petitioning of the

government that results from protracted litigation from a baseless SLAPP suit. (See, e.g., Wilcox,

supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at 815-18.)

17 (C.C.P. s. 425.16(e) (bracketed numbers added).) Note that the complained-of activities need

only be in connection with an official proceeding, not at an official proceeding. (Id.; Wilcox, supra,

27 Cal.App.4th at 820.)

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 applies to Henriks’ RICO claim because Moritz’s

communications in connection with pending or anticipated litigation are protected by the United

States and California Constitutions, and fall within the protections of Civil Code Section 47, entitling

her to the benefits of Section 425.16. Briggs, v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19

Cal.4th 1106, at 1115 [communications within the protection of the litigation privilege of Civil Code

section 47 are equally entitled to the benefits of section 425.16.].

Henriks’ RICO cause of action arises from filings and communications relating to legal actions

to which Henricks was a party. Such communications and filings are well within the litigation

privilege set forth in Civil Code § 47. The scope of the litigation privilege is very broad. In

Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, the Court held that to be privileged, the communications

need not address the merits, or the issues actually before the court. Rather, the communications need

only have some connection to, or be reasonably related to the litigation to be protected by Section

47. Id. at 380381. In subsequent cases, this broad application of the litigation privilege has been

upheld numerous times. See Profile Structures, Inc. v. Long Beach Bldg. Material Co. (1986) 181

Cal.App.3d 437, 442 (a matter need not be pertinent, relevant or material in a technical sense to any

issue if it has some connection or relation to the proceedings]; see also Abraham v. Lancaster

Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796 at 816-819 [enumerating cases from various

appellate districts upholding the privilege using a broad scope). It is the context in which the

statements are made that will bear upon the question of privilege. Sacramento Brewing Co. v.

Desmond, Miller & Desmond (1999) 75 Cal.App4th 1082,1090.

Further, if there is any doubt as to whether an adequate relationship or connection exists, such

doubt must be resolved in favor of a finding of privilege. See Profile Structures, supra, at 442; see

also Izzi v. Rellas (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 254,263. Stated another way, privilege can only be denied

if the matter is so irrelevant that no reasonable man could doubt its irrelevancy. See Lewis v. Linn

(1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 394, 399. Moritz’s privileged filings and communications also fall within

the scope of Section 425.16 because they represent constitutionally protected speech. There is no

indication that the statements were of an “illegal” nature, punishable under the penal code, or that

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

they encompass conduct outside the protections offered by Section 425.16. See generally, Flatley v.

Mauro (2006) 39 Cal4th 299,323 -325.

C. PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW A PROBABILITY THAT SHE WILL PREVAIL

ON HER CLAIM.

Once defendants have shown that the anti-SLAPP statute applies, the burden shifts to

plaintiff to show a probability of success on the merits. (C.C.P. s. 425.16(b); Wilcox, supra, 27

Cal.App.4th at 820-24.) Plaintiff also bears the burden of negating defendant’s defenses, such as the

constitutional privilege to petition the government. (C.C.P. s. 425.16(b).) Most importantly for the

instant lawsuit, plaintiff must show its probability of success by admissible evidence. (Wilcox, supra,

27 Cal.App.4th at 830.) As discussed at length, plaintiff’s vague allegations, do not meet this

criterion.

Since California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 applies here, the burden shifts to

Henriks to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits in her claims against Moritz. See Code

of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (b) (1). To meet that burden, Henriks must state and substantiate

a legally sufficient claim—i.e. she must “demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient

and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the

evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82, 88. The

plaintiff must first show that defendant’s purported constitutional defenses are not applicable as a

matter of law, or otherwise establish facts which, if accepted, would negate such defenses. Wilcox v

Superior Court (1994, 2nd Dist) 27 Cal.App.4th 809 (disapproved in part by Equilon Enterprises v

Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal4th 53. Plaintiff must establish both that that her case is

meritorious, and that she is likely to prevail -this plaintiff cannot meet those requirements.

In the context of this case, the litigation privilege continues to be relevant to the second prong

of an anti-SLAPP analysis because it presents a “substantive defense plaintiff must overcome to

demonstrate a probability of prevailing.” Flatley, supra, at 323. The litigation privilege, as codified

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

at Civil Code § 47, is very broad, and as discussed more fully above, encompasses legal arguments

and filings, and even communications between counsel that is related to the litigation, even if the

communications do not address issues actually before the court. [See Albertson supra ;see also

Profile Structures, Inc., supra.] In this case, Henriks cannot overcome the defendant’s litigation

privilege defense, and thus will be unable to establish that she is likely to prevail on her claim. The

filings she alleges were actionable were allegedly made by Defendant Moritz in connection with

pending litigation, and were all subject to the litigation privilege. Henriks will be unable to

establish any probability of prevailing on the merits of her RICO action against Moritz, since the

litigation privilege will completely bar her action as it is based entirely on filings and arguments in

litigation in which Henriks was involved.

In sum, plaintiff cannot show a probability of success on her claims because she has no

admissible evidence of anything other than lawful petitioning activity, protected by the First

Amendment and statutory privileges.

V. CONCLUSION

Both prongs of the Anti-SLAPP Statute analysis are satisfied here. Under the Anti-SLAPP

statute, this Court should strike the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff’s claim arises from the exercise of

Defendant Moritz’s right to petition and free expression, putting it well within the statutory

definition. In addition, plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her claim,

because the defendant may employ the complete defense of the litigation privilege of Civil Code

section 47. Given that the alleged conduct is constitutionally protected, and any claim based upon

the alleged conduct will be barred by the litigation privilege, both prongs of the Anti-SLAPP

analysis are satisfied. This Defendant therefore respectfully requests this Court to strike the

plaintiff’s claim that is based upon constitutionally protected and privileged conduct, in its entirety.

For the foregoing reasons, the California anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16) must be applied

by this Court. Since defendants’ activities were in furtherance of their rights to petition and speech,

and plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on the merits, the RICO complaint must be

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

stricken in its entirety pursuant to section 425.16. In addition, defendant asks this Court to award her

attorney’s fees and costs under C.C.P. section 425.16(c).

Dated: June 8, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD D. FARKAS

By__________________________________

RICHARD D. FARKAS

Attorneys for Defendant,

LOUISA MORITZ

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. FARKAS

(re: Compliance with Local Rule 7.3)

I, RICHARD D. FARKAS, declare:

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and am the

principal of the Law Offices of Richard D. Farkas, attorneys of record for Defendant LOUISA

MORITZ in this action. This Supplemental Declaration is made to specifically to detail my efforts to

“meet and confer” with opposing counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7.3 before filing this Special “Anti-

SLAPP Motion” to Strike the Plaintiff’s RICO complaint against Defendant Moritz.

2. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and I could testify to same if called

as a witness herein.

3. On March 28, 2007, I prepared a letter to Plaintiff’s attorney, Philip Dapeer. A true and

correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit L, and incorporated by this reference.

4. In my March 28, 2007 letter to Mr. Dapeer, I wrote, in part, “to request that you

voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit of Yana Henriks your office filed against my client, Louisa Moritz.

Her RICO action is a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), subject to a special

motion to strike.”

5. In my March 28, 2007 letter to Mr. Dapeer, after detailing my reasons, I concluded: “we

request that you immediately dismiss Ms. Henriks’ lawsuit against Ms. Moritz. Failure to do so will

leave us with no alternative but to file our Motion to Strike, which will necessarily seek to recover

Ms. Moritz’s fees and costs.” [Exhibit L.]

5. I sent my March 28, 2007 letter by facsimile to Mr. Dapeer on the morning of March 28,

2007. Mr. Dapeer called me on the telephone on the afternoon of March 29, 2007, and we discussed

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

the substance of this letter (as well as some of the background of this litigation). At the conclusion

of our conversation, he said that he would communicate with his client, to determine how to proceed.

During our conversation, it was clear that we did not agree that the Plaintiff’s contentions against

Defendant Moritz were subject to an anti-SLAPP motion.

6. As of the date of this Declaration, I have not heard from Mr. Dapeer since our March 29,

2007 conversation concerning the subject of this motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this ____ day of ________________, 2007, at Sherman Oaks, California.

By ____________________________________

RICHARD D. FARKAS, Declarant

RICHARD D. FARKAS\\C:\CASE FILES\NOVAL-VICTOR\MORITZ-LOUISA ADV HENRIKS -- RICO\MORITZ ADV HENRIKS -- MOTION TO DISMISS RICO COMPLAINT AS SLAPP LAWSUIT.DOC

DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT

Richard Farkas

15300 Ventura Blvd. #504

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone (818) 789-6001

Fax (818) 789-6002

Tania Henriks vs. Louisa Moritz, Victor Noval, Tania Noval, etc., et al..

United States District Court Case No. 2:06-cv-05670-JFW-SH

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a resident of the State of California, I am over the age of 18 years, and I am not a party to

this lawsuit. My business address is Law Offices of Richard D. Farkas, 15300 Ventura Boulevard,

Suite 504, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. On the date listed below, I served the following

document(s):

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT LOUISA MORITZ TO STRIKE

PLAINTIFF’S SLAPP COMPLAINT

_ by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this

date before 5 p.m. Our facsimile machine reported the “send” as successful.

XX by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the

United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below.

I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.

According to that practice, items are deposited with the United States mail on that same day with postage

thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal

cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing stated in

the affidavit.

_ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,

deposited with Federal Express Corporation on the same date set out below in the ordinary course of

business; that on the date set below, I caused to be served a true copy of the attached document(s).

_ by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the indicated recipient(s) at the address

set forth below.

_ by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person at the address set forth below.

Philip D Dapeer

Philip D Dapeer Law Offices

699 Hampshire Road, Suite 105

Westlake Village, CA 91361-2379

Jon Hugh Freis

Jon H Freis Law Offices

120 El Camino Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April __, 2007 ____________________________

KERRI CONAWAY

Pleading 6001 Ca2b2f49 8563 4ba5 Ba05 92629dcf891c

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation