Updated on March 16, 2026
Schorr Law Defeats Anti-SLAPP Motion in Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Case
Anti-SLAPP motions in real estate fraud cases in California can significantly impact property litigation. Schorr Law recently prevailed on a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure §425.16) in the case Soca, LLC v. Xclusive Management Detailing Inc., et al., pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The motion was filed by defendants FLS Realty LLC and NVSI Inc., who sought to strike the plaintiff’s civil theft claim brought under California Penal Code §496. That statute provides powerful remedies where a party knowingly receives or retains property obtained through theft, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
The Court denied the motion.
The Court’s Analysis
Anti-SLAPP motions are evaluated under a two-step framework. First, the defendant must show that the challenged claim arises from protected petitioning or free-speech activity. Only if that threshold is met does the court consider whether the plaintiff can demonstrate a probability of prevailing.
Here, the Court found the defendants failed at the first step.
The defendants argued that the Penal Code §496 claim arose from their litigation conduct, specifically their defense that a disputed grant deed was legitimate. The Court rejected that argument, explaining that the claim is not based on protected litigation activity.
Instead, the Court held that the claim arises from alleged wrongful conduct involving the retention of property obtained through fraud. As the Court explained, the claim stems from “essentially the same wrongful conduct, obtaining title through a fabricated deed and a crooked notary, as Plaintiff’s other claims.”
Because that alleged conduct does not constitute protected speech or petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, the defendants did not meet their burden under the first prong. The Court therefore denied the motion without reaching the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
Why This Anti-SLAPP Motion Ruling Matters in Real Estate Fraud Cases
The decision allows the plaintiff’s Penal Code §496 claim to proceed in the litigation. That claim alleges that defendants knowingly retained or asserted rights to property obtained through theft after being placed on notice of the alleged forgery.
Civil claims under Penal Code §496 carry significant consequences. If proven, the statute authorizes treble damages and the recovery of attorneys’ fees, making it an increasingly important tool in litigation involving alleged real estate fraud or stolen property.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an anti-SLAPP motion in California?
An anti-SLAPP motion is a legal procedure under California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 that allows defendants to quickly dismiss claims that arise from protected free speech or petitioning activity. These motions are commonly filed early in litigation and require courts to evaluate whether the challenged claim is based on protected activity and whether the plaintiff has a probability of prevailing.
Why did the court deny the anti-SLAPP motion in this case?
The court found that the defendants failed to satisfy the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The plaintiff’s claim was based on alleged wrongful conduct involving the retention of property obtained through fraud, not protected litigation activity. Because the claim did not arise from protected speech or petitioning activity, the court denied the motion.
What is a civil theft claim under California Penal Code §496?
California Penal Code §496 allows a person to bring a civil claim against someone who knowingly receives, conceals, or retains property obtained through theft. The statute provides powerful remedies, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, which can significantly increase potential liability in cases involving stolen property or fraud.
How does Penal Code §496 apply to real estate fraud cases?
Penal Code §496 can apply when a party knowingly retains or claims ownership of property that was obtained through fraudulent means, such as forged deeds or fraudulent transfers of title. In real estate disputes, this statute is increasingly used to pursue additional remedies where property is allegedly obtained through fraud.
What should property owners do if they suspect title fraud or a forged deed?
Property owners who suspect that a deed or title transfer was obtained through fraud should seek legal counsel as soon as possible. Prompt legal action may help preserve rights, investigate the alleged fraud, and pursue remedies such as quiet title claims, fraud claims, or civil theft claims under Penal Code §496.
What is title fraud in real estate?
Title fraud occurs when someone unlawfully transfers or attempts to transfer ownership of real property through fraudulent means. This may include forged deeds, fraudulent notarizations, or deceptive transfers designed to wrongfully obtain property ownership.
Can forged deeds lead to civil liability in California?
Yes. A forged deed can lead to several civil claims, including fraud, quiet title, cancellation of instruments, and in some cases civil theft claims under California Penal Code §496. If the wrongful conduct is proven, courts may award damages and other remedies to the injured property owner.
About Schorr Law
Schorr Law is a Los Angeles-based litigation boutique focused exclusively on complex real estate disputes including partition actions, title fraud claims, easement disputes, and quiet title litigation throughout California. The firm represents property owners, investors, and businesses throughout California.
About the Author
Zachary D. Schorr is a California real estate litigation attorney and the founding attorney of Schorr Law. He represents clients in easement disputes, partition lawsuits, quiet title disputes, and complex real estate litigation throughout California.
📍 Schorr Law
📞 (866) 999-2990
📧 zschorr@schorr-law.com
Full Bio | Contact | Instagram | View All Articles