Cairns v. Lions Community Service Corp. CA4/1
D078310
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 21, 2022Background:
- Nigel Cairns, a White tenant at Lions Community Manor (a HUD‑subsidized complex), questioned a perceived absence of Black residents and posted flyers; HUD data later showed a low percentage of Black tenants.
- Shortly after raising the issue, Cairns received a 10‑day warning and then a 90‑day notice of termination; Lions Community’s counsel later filed (and then dismissed) an unlawful detainer action when Cairns vacated.
- Cairns sued Lions Community for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging the eviction notices and related actions were retaliatory to prevent dissemination of his complaints about racial imbalance.
- Lions Community moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing the notices and unlawful detainer were protected petitioning activity and that Cairns could not show minimal merit.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion, relying on Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments as creating a carve‑out for discriminatory evictions.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: applying Wilson v. CNN, it held Lions Community’s notices and unlawful detainer were protected petitioning activity, Cairns failed to show a prima facie case, and the anti‑SLAPP motion should have been granted; fees were remanded for award.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cairns’s IIED claim is subject to anti‑SLAPP scrutiny | Cairns: the eviction/notice was retaliatory/discriminatory, so anti‑SLAPP should not apply | Lions: the notices and unlawful detainer are protected petitioning acts under §425.16 | Held: Anti‑SLAPP applies; motive (retaliation/discrimination) does not defeat step one (Wilson) |
| Whether Alta Loma carved out discriminatory evictions from anti‑SLAPP | Cairns/trial court: Alta Loma supports denying anti‑SLAPP when eviction is alleged to be discriminatory | Lions: Alta Loma is distinguishable and does not create a categorical exception | Held: Trial court misread Alta Loma; Alta Loma does not immunize discriminatory/retaliatory claims from anti‑SLAPP step‑one analysis |
| Whether Cairns met the burden at prong two to show minimal merit | Cairns: submitted physician letter, BBB complaint, and management letter to rebut the eviction grounds | Lions: evidence shows legitimate grounds and litigation privilege; Cairns’s opposing evidence was inadmissible/insufficient | Held: Cairns failed to present admissible competent evidence or a prima facie showing of IIED elements; prong two not met |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees after prevailing on anti‑SLAPP motion | Cairns: did not oppose fee entitlement | Lions: sought mandatory fees under §425.16(c) | Held: Lions entitled to attorney’s fees; remand for fee determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (2019) (motivation does not defeat step‑one anti‑SLAPP analysis; protected acts remain protected even if alleged to be retaliatory/discriminatory)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (critical inquiry is whether claim is based on protected activity, not merely triggered by it)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) (illegal conduct exception to anti‑SLAPP is narrow and applies only when illegality is conceded or conclusively shown)
- Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273 (2007) (distinguishes acts that trigger a complaint from the acts that form its basis; does not broadly exempt discriminatory eviction claims from anti‑SLAPP)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (2009) (elements required to state intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (anti‑SLAPP two‑step framework and burdens of proof)