City of Alhambra v. D'Ausilio
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 142
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant settled with City in 2007; settlement barred appellant from certain advocacy by section 3.8 through 2012.
- City alleged appellant breached section 3.8 by attending an AFA meeting and wearing an AFA shirt in 2008.
- City sued appellant in 2009 for breach of contract, money had and received, and declaratory relief.
- Declaratory relief sought a judicial determination of the validity and enforceability of section 3.8.
- Trial court denied anti-SLAPP motion and awarded City attorney fees; City seeks fees on appeal; appellate court affirms denial and awards on appeal.
- Court ultimately holds the declaratory relief claim did not arise from protected activity and affirms denial of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City’s declaratory relief claim arose from protected activity. | D’Ausilio’s protected speech/petitioning triggered anti-SLAPP. | Declaratory relief rests on contract dispute, not protected activity. | No; claim did not arise from protected activity. |
| Whether the first prong of anti-SLAPP is satisfied. | Protected speech under §425.16(e)(1)-(4) implicated. | Underlying controversy is contractual; not protected activity. | Not satisfied; claim not based on protected activity. |
| Whether City should recover attorney fees on appeal. | No fee justification from anti-SLAPP denial. | Fees warranted because appeal frivolous. | City awarded its appellate attorney fees; amount to be determined by trial court. |
| Whether to reverse trial court’s denial of anti-SLAPP motion on other grounds. | N/A | N/A | No basis to reverse; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-prong analysis; independent review; probability of prevailing standard)
- Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (interpretation of anti-SLAPP scope; protected activity distinction)
- Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, 181 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (distinguish evidence of liability from protected activity in SLAPP context)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (declaratory relief arising from Prop. 65 notices; protected activity basis)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (antSLAPP; protected activity threshold; standard of review)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (evidence standard for probability of prevailing in anti-SLAPP)