City of Colton v. Singletary
206 Cal. App. 4th 751
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- City of Colton filed a cross-complaint against Singletary seeking damages, restitution, declaratory, and injunctive relief related to a 1992 contract deferring infrastructure construction and a 1999 agreement reached after Singletary bribed a council member.
- Singletary pled guilty to bribing Grimsby to support the 1999 project, which prompted the City to pursue construction or reimbursement of costs already incurred.
- The cross-complaint’s fourth and sixth causes of action alleged unfair business practices and injunctive relief tied to bribery and Singletary’s lawsuit against the City.
- Singletary moved to strike these causes under the anti-SLAPP statute; the trial court granted the motion as to the fourth and sixth causes and awarded modest attorney’s fees and costs to Singletary.
- On appeal, the court split the mixed action analysis, deciding to strike the portions relating to protected activity (the lawsuit) while leaving non-protected bribery-related allegations intact.
- The court affirmed the portions of the judgment related to Singletary’s lawsuit but reversed the portions involving bribery, and ordered specific amendments to the pleadings, with the parties bearing their own appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the cross-complaint’s fourth and sixth causes arise from protected activity? | Colton argues gravamen includes protected petitioning activity (the lawsuit). | Singletary contends the actions are not protected or are incidental to nonprotected bribery. | Partially: gravamen includes protected activity, but it is mixed with nonprotected bribery; some portions struck. |
| If mixed, should the court strike only protected portions or the entire cause of action? | City contends entire mixed actions should be struck. | Singletary argues only protected portions should be struck. | Correct approach is to strike the protected portions and preserve nonprotected portions; the trial court’s selective slicing was proper. |
| Is the cross-complaint exempt from anti-SLAPP under the public enforcement exception? | City asserts public enforcement exception applies since it enforces public rights. | Singletary argues the exception does not apply because the action is not brought in the People’s name. | Prosecutorial/public enforcement exception does not apply. |
| Is the cross-complaint exempt under the public interest exception? | City asserts public interest and broad enforcement justify exemption. | Singletary contends the third factor is not satisfied since relief sought is not broader public interest. | Public interest exception does not apply. |
| Was the attorney-fee award appealable and did Singletary prevail for fee purposes? | City argues fee award should be reversed or reconsidered post-partial reversal. | Singletary asserts fee award is appealable and reasonable under standard, with partial prevailing on anti-SLAPP. | Attorney-fee award is appealable collateral-orderable; Singletary deemed prevailing on the anti-SLAPP motion for purposes of fee-shift; remand suggested for fee reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. Supreme 2007) (partial strikethrough of mixed allegations; careful evaluation of each theory of liability)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. Supreme 2011) (overruled Taus on mixed-claim approach; entire cause may proceed if protected activity shows likelihood of prevailing)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2011) (limits on severability and review of anti-SLAPP outcomes; discusses Taus implications)
- M.G. v. Time Warner, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 623 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2001) (treats anti-SLAPP motion by defendant; adoption of action-by-action consideration)
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2001) (allows considering individual causes of action for anti-SLAPP; distinguishes from M.G.)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. Supreme 2007) (reemphasized granular approach to anti-SLAPP analysis and gravamen testing)
- Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 440 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2005) (uniform standard for injunctive relief and ongoing conduct in anti-SLAPP context)
- Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., 58 Cal.2d 601 (Cal. Supreme 1962) (guilty plea admissible as admission but not collateral estoppel in civil cases)
- Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment, 111 Cal.App.4th 302 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2003) (discussed prosecutorial exception interpretation; rejected narrow reading)
- Cross v. Cooper, 197 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2011) (post-Taus analysis on protected activity and gravamen)
- Baharian-Mehr v. Smith, 189 Cal.App.4th 265 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2010) (illustrates incidental protected activity in a broader nonprotected dispute)