bona fide claim in California

2024(See People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1429 [“a claim of right may be based on a mistake of fact regarding the defendant’s right to take property”], disapproved on other grounds by People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 874, & fn. 14 .) The claim-of-right doctrine “provides that a defendant’s good faith belief, even if mistakenly held, that he has a right or claim to property he takes from another negates the felonious intent necessary for conviction of theft or robbery.” (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 938 (Tufunga).) Our Supreme Court, in Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4t

2024Yet defendant’s good faith belief in a claim of right must relate to specific property (People v. Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 950 ), and “ ‘be something more than a vague impression’ ”; defendant must have a bona fide claim (People v. Photo (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 345, 353 ).

1999(People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 181 , 749 P.2d 836 ] [fee collection for prostitution services]; People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168,1182 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ] [distribution of proceeds from forgery ring]; see also People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 425, 457-458 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] [payment for a drug deal].) The rationale and holdings of these decisions do not contravene our conclusion in this case that the availability of the claim-of-right defense to robbery was envisioned by the Legislature and incorporated into the statutory definitio

1999(People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 181 , 749 P.2d 836 ] [fee collection for prostitution services]; People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168,1182 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ] [distribution of proceeds from forgery ring]; see also People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 425, 457-458 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] [payment for a drug deal].) The rationale and holdings of these decisions do not contravene our conclusion in this case that the availability of the claim-of-right defense to robbery was envisioned by the Legislature and incorporated into the statutory definitio

1999(People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 181 , 749 P.2d 836 ] [fee collection for prostitution services]; People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168,1182 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ] [distribution of proceeds from forgery ring]; see also People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 425, 457-458 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] [payment for a drug deal].) The rationale and holdings of these decisions do not contravene our conclusion in this case that the availability of the claim-of-right defense to robbery was envisioned by the Legislature and incorporated into the statutory definitio

1999(People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 181 , 749 P.2d 836 ] [fee collection for prostitution services]; People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168,1182 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ] [distribution of proceeds from forgery ring]; see also People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 425, 457-458 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] [payment for a drug deal].) The rationale and holdings of these decisions do not contravene our conclusion in this case that the availability of the claim-of-right defense to robbery was envisioned by the Legislature and incorporated into the statutory definitio

2014(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1146-1147 ; see also People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 519-520 [claim-of-right defense not warranted where no evidence defendant “had a bona fide claim to” property].) The claim-of-right defense does not apply if the defendant conceals the taking “when it occurs or after it is discovered.” (People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1849 .) “The defense also does not apply where ‘although defendant may have “believed” he acted lawfully, he was aware of contrary facts which rendered such a belief wholly unreasonable, and hence in bad faith.’”

2014For example, the defense is not permitted where the claimed right to the property is rooted in a 'notoriously illegal' transaction." (Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1144 .) Also, "[i]n furtherance of the public policy discouraging the use of forcible self-help" (Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 950 ), the Supreme Court in Tufunga held that the claim-of-right defense does not extend to "robberies perpetrated to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt, liquidated or unliquidated─as opposed to forcible takings intended to recover specific personal property in which the defendant in good

2016(Id. at p. 938.) But it does not extend to “robberies perpetrated to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt, liquidated or unliquidated—as opposed to forcible takings intended to recover specific personal property in which the defendant in good faith believes he has a bona fide claim of ownership or title . . . .” (Id. at p. 956.) “[B]ecause of the strong public policy militating against self-help by force or fear, courts will not recognize a good faith defense to the satisfaction of a debt when accomplished by the use of force or fear.” (Id. at p. 955.) Indeed, “the proper forum for r

1999Hence, good faith, or the fact that the end accomplished by such means is rightful, cannot avail one as a defense in such prosecution, any more than such facts would constitute a defense where one compels payment of a just debt by the threat to do an unlawful injury to the person of his debtor.” (Beggs, supra, 178 Cal. at p. 84 , italics added.) We therefore hold that to the extent Butler, supra, 65 Cal.2d 569 , extended the claim-of-right defense to robberies perpetrated to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt, liquidated or unliquidated—as opposed to forcible takings intended to re

2016(Id. at p. 948; see also id. at pp. 946-948.) Further, theft is a lesser included offense of robbery and it has long been recognized as a “commonsense notion” that one “cannot steal his own property” and section 484 defines theft as the taking of “the personal property of another.” (Id. at p. 948.) The claim-of-right defense does not apply to claims based on “notoriously illegal activities.” (People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 .) “As a matter of law, one cannot have a good faith belief that he has a right to property when that ‘right’ is rooted in a notoriously illegal transaction.

2015(Id. at p. 948; see also id. at pp. 946-948.) Further, theft is a lesser included offense of robbery and it has long been recognized as a “commonsense notion” that one “cannot steal his own property” and section 484 defines theft as the taking of “the personal property of another.” (Id. at p. 948.) The claim-of-right defense does not apply to claims based on “notoriously illegal activities.” (People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 (Hendricks).) “As a matter of law, one cannot have a good faith belief that he has a right to property when that ‘right’ is rooted in a notoriously illegal tr

2014(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1146-1147 ; see also People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 519-520 [claim-of-right defense not warranted where no evidence defendant “had a bona fide claim to” property].) The claim-of-right defense does not apply if the defendant conceals the taking “when it occurs or after it is discovered.” (People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1849 .) “The defense also does not apply where ‘although defendant may have “believed” he acted lawfully, he was aware of contrary facts which rendered such a belief wholly unreasonable, and hence in bad faith.’”

2014For example, the defense is not permitted where the claimed right to the property is rooted in a 'notoriously illegal' transaction." (Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1144 .) Also, "[i]n furtherance of the public policy discouraging the use of forcible self-help" (Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 950 ), the Supreme Court in Tufunga held that the claim-of-right defense does not extend to "robberies perpetrated to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt, liquidated or unliquidated─as opposed to forcible takings intended to recover specific personal property in which the defendant in good

2014For example, the defense is not permitted where the claimed right to the property is rooted in a 'notoriously illegal' transaction." (Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1144 .) Also, "[i]n furtherance of the public policy discouraging the use of forcible self-help" (Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 950 ), the Supreme Court in Tufunga held that the claim-of-right defense does not extend to "robberies perpetrated to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt, liquidated or unliquidated─as opposed to forcible takings intended to recover specific personal property in which the defendant in good

2011(People v. Fenderson (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 625, 642-643 [ 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 17 ].) Section 511 of the Penal Code codifies this principle, providing that a claim of right vitiates criminal charges where “the property was appropriated openly and avowedly, and under a claim of title preferred in good faith, even though such claim is untenable.” (See People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 952, fn. 4 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 143 , 987 P.2d 168 ] [claim-of-right defense applies to all theft-related offenses].) Thus, in the insurance context, “the fact that the alleged wrongdoer acted under a bona fide clai

1966(See: People v. McDowell (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 734, 736 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; People v. Singh, supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 363, 366 ; People v. Moffett, supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 626, 629 .) There is nothing in the record to show that he has a bona fide defense to either of the charges.

1966(See: People v. McDowell (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 734, 736 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; People v. Singh, supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 363, 366 ; People v. Moffett, supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 626, 629 .) There is nothing in the record to show that he has a bona fide defense to either of the charges.

2014(See Elliott v. State (1970) 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 418 [ 454 S.W.2d 187, 188 ] [“even if the property the defendant alleged was stolen from him had been the very watch and ring later taken [by the defendant] from the person of the victim, the jury would still have been justified in finding the crime of robbery was perpetrated”].) *902 Appellant contends that, based on the record of conviction, it cannot be determined whether he took the victim’s two pizzas under a claim of right and, therefore, whether he would have been guilty of robbery pursuant to California law.

2014(See Elliott v. State (1970) 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 418 [ 454 S.W.2d 187, 188 ] [“even if the property the defendant alleged was stolen from him had been the very watch and ring later taken [by the defendant] from the person of the victim, the jury would still have been justified in finding the crime of robbery was perpetrated”].) *902 Appellant contends that, based on the record of conviction, it cannot be determined whether he took the victim’s two pizzas under a claim of right and, therefore, whether he would have been guilty of robbery pursuant to California law.

2024Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. the defendant appreciate the illegality of what it has done or failed to do.3 (See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich L.P.A. (2010) 559 U.S. 573, 585 (Jerman); id. at pp. 582– 583 [federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act defense for a debt collector who can show its “violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error” (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c)) applies to mistakes of fact, but not mistakes about what the law requires]; see also, e.g., Bryan

2024Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. the defendant appreciate the illegality of what it has done or failed to do.3 (See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich L.P.A. (2010) 559 U.S. 573, 585 (Jerman); id. at pp. 582– 583 [federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act defense for a debt collector who can show its “violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error” (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c)) applies to mistakes of fact, but not mistakes about what the law requires]; see also, e.g., Bryan

2024Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. the defendant appreciate the illegality of what it has done or failed to do.3 (See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich L.P.A. (2010) 559 U.S. 573, 585 (Jerman); id. at pp. 582– 583 [federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act defense for a debt collector who can show its “violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error” (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c)) applies to mistakes of fact, but not mistakes about what the law requires]; see also, e.g., Bryan

2024(See Davis, supra, 41 F.Supp.3d at p. 925 [noting “studies show[ ] that anywhere from 29% to well over 90% of debt collection lawsuits result in default judgments in favor of the debt collector or creditor”].) We also note the plaintiff’s burden in the second prong of an anti-SLAPP analysis “is not high; the plaintiff need only establish that the claims have ‘ “minimal merit.” ’ ” (Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43.) Given the significant authority above finding strict liability FDCPA claims can be stated based on cases of merely 4 It bears noting that the court in Hedayat

2024(See People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1429 [“a claim of right may be based on a mistake of fact regarding the defendant’s right to take property”], disapproved on other grounds by People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 874, & fn. 14 .) The claim-of-right doctrine “provides that a defendant’s good faith belief, even if mistakenly held, that he has a right or claim to property he takes from another negates the felonious intent necessary for conviction of theft or robbery.” (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 938 (Tufunga).) Our Supreme Court, in Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4t

2024(See People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1429 [“a claim of right may be based on a mistake of fact regarding the defendant’s right to take property”], disapproved on other grounds by People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 874, & fn. 14 .) The claim-of-right doctrine “provides that a defendant’s good faith belief, even if mistakenly held, that he has a right or claim to property he takes from another negates the felonious intent necessary for conviction of theft or robbery.” (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 938 (Tufunga).) Our Supreme Court, in Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4t