Collier v. Harris
192 Cal.Rptr.3d 31
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Korpi registered the domain names juliecollier.com and parentsadvocateleague.com to influence a local school board election.
- He redirected visitors from those domains to rival candidates’ websites to boost those campaigns’ visibility.
- Collier, a teacher and parent, alleged the domain registrations and redirects misled the public about her stance.
- Collier filed invasion of privacy, false impersonation (Penal Code § 528.5), and unlawful use of a domain name (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17525) claims.
- The trial court denied the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion; the appellate court reversed and remanded for second-prong analysis.
- Korpi died during the pendency of the appeal; Patrick Harris was substituted as executor of Korpi’s estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first prong of anti-SLAPP applies to domain actions | Collier contends the domain actions do not arise from protected activity | Korpi argues acts furthered free speech and petition rights | Yes; acts assisted free speech, triggering first prong protection. |
| Whether Korpi’s conduct is criminal as a matter of law to negate anti-SLAPP protections | Collier asserts criminal impersonation and other crimes apply | Korpi did not concede illegality; evidence not conclusively illegal | Not established as criminal as a matter of law; Flatley exception not triggered. |
| Whether §17525 or related statutes remove anti-SLAPP protection | Collier argues statutes show criminal conduct that defeats protection | Statutory violations alone do not eliminate anti-SLAPP protection without proven criminality | Statutory violations do not by themselves defeat anti-SLAPP protection. |
| Whether the matter should be remanded for second-prong analysis | Second prong should be decided by reviewing court | Trial court should decide second prong if needed | Remand to the trial court for second-prong analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (articulates two-prong anti-SLAPP framework)
- Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal.App.4th 133 (Cal. App. 2011) (protects protected activity and balancing test)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (expands protected activity categories under 425.16(e))
- Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. App. 2003) (protective scope of anti-SLAPP beyond speech to related conduct)
- Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th 1510 (Cal. App. 2013) (conduct that advances or assists free speech can be protected)