Area 51 Prods., Inc. v. City of Alameda
20 Cal. App. 5th 581
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Area 51 (event promoter) had a long-term practice licensing Alameda Point (NWT) for events; City contracted PM Realty to manage licenses. Rock Wall briefly joined then left a joint entity with Area 51 in late 2013.
- After Rock Wall's withdrawal, City/PM placed “soft holds” and exchanged emails in March–April 2014 confirming holds and draft licenses for specific event dates; Area 51 contends these communications created binding commitments.
- On May 19, 2014 the City (via Mocanu) notified Area 51 that the City’s licensing relationship was over; Area 51 alleged some events proceeded but later led to disputes and third‑party claims against Area 51.
- Area 51 sued City, two individual city officials (Russo, Mocanu), PM and PM employees, asserting: breach of contract (and covenant), tortious interference (contract and prospective), unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200), and negligent misrepresentation.
- Defendants moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16) and demurred; trial court sustained the demurrer (leave to amend) but denied the anti‑SLAPP motion; defendants appealed the anti‑SLAPP ruling.
- Court of Appeal: held first five claims against the City itself do not arise from protected activity (they target the City’s refusal to license), but the same causes against the individual City defendants and PM defendants arise from protected communicative acts; the negligent‑misrepresentation claim (sixth) arises from protected communications as to all defendants. Court reversed in part and remanded for fee allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's claims "arise from" protected petition/speech under §425.16 | The March/April confirmations and May notice created/terminated licensing commitments; claims challenge wrongful refusal to provide property and therefore do not target protected speech | Defendants: the acts at issue are communications by public officials/agents in connection with executive decisionmaking (protected under §425.16(e)(2)); anti‑SLAPP applies | Court: mixed. Claims against City for breach/interference/§17200 do not arise from protected activity; but the same claims against individual City and PM defendants rest on communicative acts and do arise from protected activity |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation claim is protected activity | Area 51: defendants misrepresented that confirmed reservations would be honored, causing reliance and damages | Defendants: misrepresentation claim is based on communications made in connection with executive decisionmaking and thus protected | Held: negligent‑misrepresentation cause arises from protected activity as to all defendants |
| Whether Area 51 made a prima facie showing of probability of prevailing on claims that are based on protected activity | Area 51 relied on CEO Walker declaration asserting course of dealing, confirmations, deposits, and damages | Defendants: Walker declaration is insufficient, lacks authenticated documentary proof, and fails to establish required elements (agency, independent tort duties, falsity, reliance, damages) | Held: Area 51 failed to show probability of prevailing on (1) first–fifth causes as to Individual City/PM defendants and (2) sixth cause as to all defendants; anti‑SLAPP relief appropriate for those claims |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under §425.16(c)(1) | Area 51 sought fees arguing defendants’ anti‑SLAPP motion was improper because dispute is primarily a business dispute not subject to anti‑SLAPP | Defendants sought fees as prevailing parties on anti‑SLAPP motion | Held: Individual City and PM defendants are prevailing parties and entitled to fees allocable to that success (including on appeal); City is partially prevailing and may obtain fees allocable to its partial victory; Area 51 not entitled to fees because defendants’ motion was not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (clarifies two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis and that statute provides procedural summary‑disposition, not immunity)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (anti‑SLAPP requires court to identify whether claim arises from protected activity)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (courts should consider claim elements and which defendant acts supply those elements when assessing whether claim arises from protected activity)
- City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (Cal. 2016) (communications and votes by officials in connection with governmental decisionmaking can be protected activity)
- City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC, 214 Cal.App.4th 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishes when claims attack speech versus underlying governmental acts)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 6 Cal.App.5th 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (gravamen analysis focuses on defendant acts that supply claim elements rather than collateral communications)