88-89, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703 (2002)). Thus, the Court finds that any state law claims based on the Property Defendants’ actions relating to the prosecution of the UD action are independently barred under California’s antiSLAPP statute. E. Remaining Defendants Not all of the parties named as Defendants have filed motions to dismiss or otherwise responded to the Complaint. The docket indicates that each of the summons as to these non-responding Defendants was returned unexecuted. Dkt. 19, 21, 23-33. Nonetheless, because the Court’s reasoning as set forth above is equally applicable to Drawsand’s claims against all of the Defendants, the complaint against the remaining Defendants likewise will be dismissed. See Silverton v. Dept. of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v.
holding that district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment holding that the court implicitly denied the plaintiffs motion to strike certain submissions because the court in its opinion granting defendants motion to dismiss relied on defendants materials holding district court may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are integrally related holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss