Epsten APC, Author at Epsten, APC

Epsten, APC Welcomes Attorney Marta D. Morataya to Its Legal Team

Epsten, APC is pleased to announce the addition of Attorney Marta D. Morataya to the firm’s San Diego office. Marta is a member of the firm’s Transactional Department.

“We welcome Marta to our firm. Her experience and focus on client needs make her a valuable addition as we continue to serve community associations. Welcome to the team, Marta!” said Kieran Purcell, Esq., CCAL, Managing Shareholder.

As a former social worker and legal intern for a number of diverse organizations such as the Smithsonian Institution and the University of New Hampshire’s Innovation team, Marta has extensive experience making connections and working with people from all walks of life. She utilizes those skills to communicate with clients and ensure that client needs are met efficiently with attention, respect, and reliability.

From these experiences Marta learned that research and creativity are important components when negotiating and drafting agreements or other legal documents. Marta looks forward to using her research and creative problem-solving skills to assist her clients at Epsten, APC.

Marta D. Morataya, Esq.

Solving Problems Early: Preventing Lawsuits While Building Community – Handling Homeowner Conflicts Without Lawsuits

Community associations often deal with upset homeowners. Sometimes the issues are small, like a neighbor’s barking dog. Other times, the problems are bigger, like unpaid assessments or rule violations. No matter the situation, if it is not handled well, it can quickly escalate and get worse—and even lead to a lawsuit, which will likely be expensive, as well as unnecessary, for everyone involved.

The good news is that there are tools that help calm people down and solve problems before they go too far. Bill Eddy, co-founder of the High Conflict Institute, has developed two simple methods that can help tremendously: BIFF and EAR. These tools are easy to learn and use, and they work well for both board members and managers who want to handle conflicts with homeowners in a respectful and effective way. This article explains how to reduce anger and de-escalate conflicts with homeowners with the ultimate goal of avoiding a lawsuit.

Clear and Respectful Communications to Calm Conflicts – BIFF and EAR

BIFF stands for Brief, Informative, Friendly, and Firm. It is a method for responding to upset or angry (i.e., high conflict) emails, letters, or conversations that keeps the conflict from growing. When someone is angry, it is very easy to get pulled into an argument. But a BIFF response avoids that.

A brief response gets straight to the point. Long replies often include unnecessary details that can trigger more arguments. A BIFF response keeps things short and simple, which helps calm the situation. Informative means sharing useful facts, not opinions or emotions. Instead of defending yourself or the association or blaming the other person, try explaining the relevant rules or what the association is doing about the issue. This approach should help the homeowner focus on the facts instead of their frustration. Friendly means using a respectful and kind tone, even if the other person is upset. A calm, polite tone shows that you are not there to fight; it builds trust and makes it easier to work to solve the problem. Firm means setting clear boundaries. You don’t need to argue or give in—you just need to clearly state the decision or next steps, without sounding angry. Firm doesn’t mean harsh. It means confident and steady.

EAR stands for Empathy, Attention, and Respect. It is a way to talk to people when they are upset – about anything. People in conflict often want most to feel heard and understood. EAR helps you do that without agreeing with everything they say.

Empathy means showing that you understand the person’s feelings. You do not have to agree with their complaint to show empathy. Simply saying, “I hear what you’re saying” and “I can see why you’re upset,” or “That does sound frustrating,” is a great start to the conversation. Attention means giving the person your full focus—listening without interrupting or getting defensive. Just listening calmly often helps people calm down on their own. When someone feels as if no one is listening, they often get louder and more upset. Respect means treating the other person with dignity, even if/when they are being rude. General rules of manners and politeness can go a long way. Saying “Thank you for sharing your concerns” or “I respect your point of view,” can show you care about the person, even when you disagree with what they are saying.

Using EAR often makes people feel safe enough to talk instead of argue and fight. It builds trust and shows that the association wants to solve problems, not just enforce rules.

Solving Problems Early: Preventing Lawsuits and Building Community

The earlier a problem is addressed, the easier it will be to solve. Small issues that are ignored can grow into big problems. When people feel ignored or disrespected, they are more likely to take legal action. That is why using BIFF and EAR early on can be important.

Another key tip is to keep good communication going, even when there are no problems. Send regular updates, newsletters, or friendly messages that show the board is active and cares about the community. When people feel informed and respected, they are more likely to come to the HOA with their concerns before they explode.

Associations can also stay ahead of conflict by teaching board members and managers these tools in training sessions. The more people who use BIFF and EAR, the stronger and calmer the whole community becomes. And that means fewer angry emails, fewer meetings that turn into arguments, and ultimately, fewer lawsuits.

Keep the Peace and Protect Your Community

Dealing with conflict is part of life in any community, but it does not have to lead to courtrooms and chaos. By using the BIFF and EAR methods, associations, board members, and community managers can calm angry homeowners, solve problems early, and build stronger relationships.

These tools are not hard to learn. They just take practice and a commitment to respectful communication. When you respond in a way that is Brief, Informative, Friendly, and Firm—and show Empathy, Attention, and Respect—you create a space where people feel heard and respected. That is how good communities stay strong.

For more information about BIFF, EAR, or the High Conflict Institute please visit the High Conflict Institute’s website at www.HighConflictInstitute.com.

Architectural Review Committee Checklist

Look to the governing documents:

Do they call for an architectural review committee (ARC)? What authority and/or restrictions to its authority apply?

Would the improvement, if approved, violate the governing documents? Does the ARC have the authority to approve the variance?

Follow all procedural steps:

Has the architectural application been submitted in its entirety?
- Is there an official architectural application form that owners must submit? What information must be included?
- Practice Tip: Mark all pages of an application (e.g., “1 of 6”) to ensure complete application is reviewed and saved together.
- The complete copy of the application should be kept in the Association’s records.
What deadlines for approving/denying architectural applications exist in the governing documents and in the Civil Code?
- - If the deadline passes, is the application deemed automatically approved? Look to CC&Rs and Civil Code.
  - - For example, under Civil Code §4745(e), applications for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations must be deemed approved unless denied in writing within sixty (60) days of submission.
    - Practice Tip: Calendar all automatic approval dates.
  - Procedure for making decision must be fair, reasonable, and expeditious. (Civil Code §4765 (a)(1))
  - Decision must be in writing (Civil code §4765 (a)(4))
  - - Denial must explain why application was denied and provide owner with notice of right to appeal

Standards for Review:

Follow Guidelines.
- - Are they well written? Are they consistent with CC&Rs? If not, revise.
  - Criteria in guidelines may be subjective.
  - Decision making should not be arbitrary.
  - - If certain improvements have been allowed in the past, applications for similar improvements should only be rejected if there is a tangible reason (i.e., different or changed circumstances).

Get legal updates straight to your inbox.

Our newsletters highlight community association best practices, new developments in the laws affecting associations, and sheds light on topics of concern and relevance to those involved in association management.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 3/5/2025

Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., CCAL

Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT SUSPENDED

In a significant development for U.S. common interest developments, the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury Department) issued a press release on March 2, 2025, clarifying its enforcement stance on the Corporate Transparency Act (Act).

The press release stated the Treasury Department will not enforce penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting rule under the existing regulatory guidelines. The press release also said the Treasury Department will refrain from enforcing any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, or their beneficial owners after the upcoming rule changes take effect.

To clarify this last point, the Treasury Department explained it will be “issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only. Treasury takes this step in the interest of supporting hard-working American taxpayers and small businesses and ensuring that the rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest.”

While the official rule is still forthcoming, this press release shows that the Treasury Department is moving toward tailoring the Act so that it does not apply to U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies. Once the official rule is implemented, it is anticipated the Act will no longer apply to domestic reporting companies, including common interest developments.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated, “This is a victory for common sense.”

This continues to be a developing issue and common interest development boards should anticipate updates as the official rule has not yet been implemented.

EFFORTS BY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE

The Community Associations Institute (CAI) has spent much of the past two years advocating for common interest developments. CAI filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the Act on common interest developments and utilized lobbying and advocacy efforts in Washington D.C. to encourage Congress to repeal the Act, exempt common interest developments, or delay the first reporting date. Epsten, APC thanks CAI for its diligent efforts to protect common interest developments.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 2/19/2025

Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., CCAL

Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REINSTATED

On February 17, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas stayed a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (Act) in Smith v. United States Department of Treasury. The Eastern District of Texas’ decision cited the recent Supreme Court of the United States’ Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry—formerly, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland decision as precedent.

The Smith nationwide injunction was the last remaining order pausing beneficial ownership reporting requirements. The Eastern District of Texas’ decision in Smith means common interest developments which meet FinCEN’s “reporting company” definition must file a beneficial ownership information (BOI) report within the filing deadlines. Click here for more information to help you determine if your common interest development is a “reporting company.”

UPDATED DEADLINE TO FILE – 12:00 PM EASTERN, MARCH 21, 2025

On February 19, 2025, FinCEN issued an alert regarding the Act. FinCEN stated that the decision by the Eastern District of Texas reinstated reporting requirements under the Act. However, the Department of the Treasury recognized some reporting companies may need additional time to comply with reporting obligations, so FinCEN generally extended the deadline 30 calendar days to 12:00 pm Eastern, March 21, 2025.

If your association was previously given a later deadline by the Department of the Treasury, the later deadline should still be met. These extensions were granted for various reasons, including certain disaster relief extensions. However, for most reporting companies, the deadline to file beneficial owner information reports is March 21, 2025.

IS THERE STILL HOPE THE REQUIREMENTS WILL CHANGE BEFORE THE DEADLINE?

Status of CAI’s CTA Lawsuit, Lobbying, and Advocacy Efforts

As you may recall, the Community Associations Institute (CAI) filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the Act on common interest developments. CAI requested a preliminary injunction, but that request was denied by a federal judge. CAI appealed the denial and the government responded to the appeal on February 7, 2025. CAI’s response is due at the end of February.

In addition, CAI is continuing to utilize lobbying and advocacy efforts in Washington D.C. to encourage Congress to repeal the Act, exempt common interest developments from the Act’s reporting requirements, or delay the first reporting date. H.R. 736 and S. 505 are two bills that were recently introduced to seek a one-year delay of the CTA reporting requirements.

If you are interested in assisting with CAI’s efforts, visit CAI’s Action Center for information about how to contact your Congress person and Senators to ask them to support H.R. 736 and S. 505.

This continues to be a developing issue. Common interest development boards should continue to remain informed and should be prepared to file any required reports prior to FinCEN’s March 21, 2025 deadline.

*This article is an update to the previous versions:

Safeguards for Volunteer Directors

Community associations are governed by boards of directors made up of volunteers. The role of these volunteers is crucial to keeping community associations functioning, but potential volunteers are often dissuaded by their fear of potential liability. This is a misconception. California law has evolved considerably to provide a robust framework of shields for volunteer directors. This article explores the statutory protections, insurance options, and governing document provisions that together safeguard volunteer directors, ensuring they can perform their essential roles without undue personal risk.

What is a volunteer?
Corporations Code section 5239(b) defines “volunteer” as “the rendering of services without compensation.” “Compensation” is further defined as “remuneration whether by way of salary, fee, or other consideration for services rendered.” However, the Corporations Code specifically allows for the payment of per diem, mileage, or other reimbursement expenses. While it may be tempting to offer perks to get owners in the community to participate on the Board, community association Boards should be careful to avoid offering any perks that could be considered compensation. For example, assigned parking spaces could arguably be consideration for services rendered as parking spaces have a monetary value.

Statutory Protections
Public Policy
Corporations Code section 5047.5(a) addresses the services of directors and officers of nonprofit corporations as “critical to the efficient conduct and management of the public service and charitable affairs of the people of California.” This Corporations Code section also codifies as California public policy the state’s decision “to provide incentive and protection to the individuals who perform these important functions.”

Business Judgment Rule
Corporations Code section 7231 establishes the Business Judgment Rule which protects directors from personal liability when the directors perform their duties in good faith, in a manner such directors believe to be in the best interests of the corporation, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would in similar circumstances.

Civil Code Section 5800
Civil Code section 5800 provides additional protections for volunteer directors who own no more than two (2) homes within the community. Volunteer directors and officers are not personally liable in excess of the community association’s insurance coverage so long as the community association has maintained the minimum levels of general liability and D&O insurance as required by law and the volunteer directors and officers’ actions were performed in good faith, within the scope of their duties, and were not willful, wanton, or grossly negligent.

Directors and Officers Insurance
Directors and Officers Insurance, commonly referred to as D&O insurance, protects both the community association from liability and volunteer directors and officers from personal liability for errors and omissions made by directors and officers while they were serving on the Board. All community associations are required by law to maintain minimum levels of D&O insurance.

Governing Documents
In addition to statutory protections and D&O insurance, volunteer directors may also find additional protections in their community association’s CC&Rs and/or Bylaws. Some, but not all, CC&Rs and Bylaws contain indemnity provisions that offer protections for directors and officers against their negligence and omissions. Since every community association has unique CC&Rs and Bylaws, each community association should consult with their legal representation to see whether there are protections for the volunteer directors.

Conclusion
Potential Board members should not let fear of personal liability keep them from running for the Board. So long as their Association retains the adequate amount of D&O insurance and they perform their duties in good faith, in a manner they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would in similar circumstances, California law, D&O insurance, and potentially even the governing documents will provide protections against personal liability.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 1/30/2025

Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., CCAL

Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REMAIN PAUSED

On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (Act) in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry—formerly, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland. This decision appears at first glance to require that common interest developments comply with the Act. However, Texas Top Cop Shop is not the only case currently making its way through the judicial system. A different federal judge in Texas imposed a similar nationwide injunction in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Smith nationwide injunction still remains in place.

On January 24, 2025, FinCEN issued an alert confirming that despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop, while the Smith order remains in place, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports with FinCEN and are not subject to liability for failure to do so. That said, FinCEN reiterated that reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

At present, the Smith nationwide injunction means the reporting requirements for applicable common interest developments are currently “on hold” and thus applicable common interest developments are not currently subject to liability for failure to meet filing deadlines.

Common interest development boards should continue to remain informed and prepared to act quickly to meet filing deadlines as needed. Our office will continue to provide updates as they arise.

Status of CAI’s CTA Lawsuit, Lobbying and Advocacy Efforts

As you may be aware, the Community Associations Institute (CAI) filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the Act on common interest developments. CAI requested a preliminary injunction but that request was denied by a federal judge. CAI appealed and the government’s response to CAI’s appeal is due on January 31, 2025.

In addition, CAI is utilizing lobbying and advocacy efforts in Washington D.C. to encourage legislators to either repeal the Act or exempt common interest developments from the Act’s reporting requirements. H.R. 425 and S. 100 are two bills that were introduced to repeal the Act.

If you are interested in assisting with CAI’s efforts, visit CAI’s Action Center for information about how to contact your Members of Congress and Senators to ask them to support H.R. 425 and S. 100.

For additional information and updates regarding the Act and CAI’s efforts to repeal the Act or exempt applicable common interest developments visit www.caionline.org/CTA.

Understanding the Fees and Costs of Superior Court Litigation

When a community association ends up in court, it can be a costly process. Sometimes community associations go to court to protect their rights and the rights of the community. Examples of these lawsuits are typically to enforce the governing documents or to enforce other contractual rights. Other times, community associations are brought into court because they have been sued. Regardless of the merits of the case and regardless of which side of a case the community association is on (plaintiff or defendant), fees and costs can add up very quickly.

The Process of Litigation

Litigation refers to the process of taking legal action in court. When a community association files a lawsuit, it is essentially asking the court to enforce a rule or decision a homeowner has violated. This can include things like unpaid dues, violations of the CC&Rs (such as illegal modifications to property or nuisances), or failure to follow community guidelines.

Litigation typically starts when the community association files a complaint in Superior Court, the court that handles major civil cases in California. Before going to court, the community association usually sends notices or warnings to the homeowner, letting them know that they are violating the rules. If a community association (or member) intends to file a lawsuit solely for declaratory or injunctive relief (asking the court to decide the rights and duties of the parties and/or seeking an injunction to compel the defendant to do, or refrain from doing, something) the potential plaintiff must first offer formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) which typically takes the form of mediation. If the homeowner doesn’t comply (or refuses to participate in ADR), the community association may move forward with a lawsuit.

Costs Involved in Litigation

There are several categories of costs involved when an association decides to pursue litigation. These can include:

Court Fees: To start a lawsuit in Superior Court, the plaintiff must pay a filing fee. This fee varies depending on the type of case and the amount of money involved, but Superior Court cases are typically around $500 or a little more. Each defendant in the case will owe a similar amount of money to the court as a first appearance fee. After the first appearance, each filing with the court – briefs, case management statements, ex parte applications, by way of a few of the more common examples – will have a filing fee, ranging from $20 to $100 or more.

Attorneys’ Fees: Probably the single biggest cost for a community association involved in litigation will be attorneys’ fees. Whether or the plaintiff or defense side of a case, a community association will probably need to retain a lawyer to represent it in court; the exceptions are small claims cases (attorneys are not allowed) and cases in which the community association is being sued and insurance defense counsel is provided by its insurance company. The lawyers’ job includes preparing documents, attending court hearings, propounding and responding to written discovery, taking depositions, attending mediation, negotiating settlements, and making legal arguments on behalf of the community association. Attorneys typically charge by the hour, and hourly rates depend on the lawyer’s experience, the complexity of the case, and the location where the association is located. In California, attorneys typically charge between $400 and $500 per hour or more.

While litigation can be expensive, under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, in lawsuits involving the enforcement of governing documents, the winning party may recover its attorneys’ fees. If the community association wins a case against an owner to force compliance with a rule, the community association can ask the court for its legal fees. On the flip side, if the owner wins, they may be able to recover their legal fees from the community association. Attorney’s fees incurred in Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) can be included in the fees awarded even though it is typically before a lawsuit is formally filed.

In lawsuits that do not involve the enforcement of the governing documents, the general rule is that each side pays its own attorneys’ fees. There are a few exceptions to this rule, including breach of contract lawsuits in which the contract has an attorneys’ fees provision. Another exception are causes of action that have a specific right to attorneys’ fees under California law, such as some employment claims and bad faith lawsuits against insurance companies. The possibility of recovering – or not recovering – attorneys’ fees under is an important factor for parties to consider. It provides an incentive for owners to follow the rules, as they could end up paying the community association’s legal fees, as well as their own. It also gives community associations the ability to recover some of their costs if they need to go to court to enforce the rules. Owners should be aware that they could be held responsible for paying legal fees if they are found to be in the wrong. This can be a very significant financial burden, so it is important all parties understand their rights and responsibilities under the law.

Discovery Costs: Discovery is the process whereby both parties investigate the case as completely as possible on their own, and also request and exchange information from each other before trial. This is done by asking written questions that are answered under penalty of perjury, requesting documents, taking depositions (questions asked orally that are answered under oath), and investigating and gathering evidence. Discovery can be a time-consuming and expensive part of litigation, especially if there are a lot of documents to review or witnesses to interview. The community association may also need to hire experts or investigators to assist with the case, adding to the overall cost.

Other Related Expenses: In addition to filing fees, there likely will be other costs, such as charges for having subpoenas served on third parties, copying costs for records that are produced, and documents served personally on other parties. There also will be court reporter fees both for court hearings and for depositions. These costs quickly add up, especially if the case is lengthy or complicated.

Appeals: If either party is unhappy with the court or jury’s decision, they may appeal. Appeals can be costly because they involve additional legal work, including preparing legal briefs and attending appellate court hearings.

Considerations Before Litigating

Because of the potential costs involved, community associations should carefully consider whether litigation is the best option. Pursuing a court action should typically be a last resort after most, if not all, other attempts to resolve the issue have failed, including sending letters, holding hearings, Internal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) and ADR. If a dispute does go to court, even if the community association wins, the process can still be expensive and time-consuming, even if attorneys’ fees are recoverable. Lawsuits can be divisive within community associations because the parties live (owners) and work (management) near each other. Additionally, witnesses and others who may become tangentially involved may feel unintended awkwardness or pressures.

It is not feasible to predict with any certainty how much a lawsuit will cost because it depends largely on how the other side prosecutes (or defends) the lawsuit. Some litigants and their attorneys can be very aggressive and run up costs.

Conclusion

Litigating in Superior Court can be a costly process for community associations. Some of that cost may be offset through the possible recovery of attorneys’ fees. To minimize costs, both community associations and owners should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of pursuing litigation and explore all options for resolving disputes before going to court. By understanding the costs and fees as well as the process involved, everyone can make more-informed decisions about how to handle disputes in their communities.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 12/27/2024

*This article is an update to the previous versions:

FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATES NATIONWIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT

On December 26, 2024, the full panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Fifth Circuit”) vacated the December 23, 2024 decision by a three judge panel to stay the preliminary nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (“Act”) created by the December 3, 2024 ruling in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals court order can be read here. Please note this order simply reinstates the initial preliminary injunction and is still not a final ruling on the Act’s constitutionality.

At present, the Fifth Circuit’s order means the reporting requirements for applicable community associations are currently “on hold” and applicable community associations are not currently required to meet the January deadlines for filing.

The Fifth Circuit is expediting the government’s appeal and additional developments are imminent. Our office will continue to provide updates as they arise. However, community association boards should continue to closely monitor the developments and remain prepared to meet applicable filing deadlines if the filing requirements are reinstated.

For additional information and updates on the Texas Top Cop Shop case appeal and its applicability to the Act visit www.caionline.org/CTA.

Dubac v. Itkoff (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 540

Summary by

Share this article

Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq.
Shareholder

Emily A. Long, Esq.
Senior Attorney

Dubac sued Itkoff and Diamond, claiming that they had sent defamatory emails accusing Dubac of various wrongdoings, including being a pathological liar, committing perjury, and causing problems within the association. These emails were shared with other members of the community, adding to the allegedly public nature of the conflict. In response, Itkoff and Diamond filed a motion to strike the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

In analyzing the anti-SLAPP issue, the court evaluated whether the statements made by Itkoff and Diamond were part of a public issue or a matter of public interest. The trial court ruled that some statements were connected to a public issue and others were not. Thus, Dubac’s lawsuit continued.

On appeal, the court agreed that the majority of the statements made by Itkoff and Diamond did not meet the criteria for being protected speech under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that while some statements involved matters of interest to the association, and therefore were public, not all personal disputes within a private organization rise to the level of public concern, particularly when the number of people affected in an intrabuilding dispute were “minute.”

TAKEAWAY: Defamation claims can be very complex, particularly in the context of community association disputes. The anti-SLAPP statute has limitations when it comes to distinguishing between public and private matters.

Dubac v. Itkoff (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 540