Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Ass'n of Rancho Palos Verdes
9 Cal. App. 5th 119
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Homeowners Yu Ping Liu and Richard Colyear are members of the Rolling Hills HOA; Liu filed an HOA "Application for Assistance to Restore View" identifying trees on a neighbor (Krauthamer) property as obstructing his view.
- The community has multiple recorded declarations (Declaration 150 and 150‑M); Declaration 150 contains an HOA tree‑trimming covenant, but 150‑M (which burdens the lots at issue) does not contain the same explicit provision.
- The HOA adopted Resolution 220 (procedures for view‑impairment applications) citing Declaration 150 and creating a process for members to request HOA trimming/enforcement; the process had been the subject of ongoing debate among homeowners since at least 2002.
- Colyear, who received notice of Liu’s application and later alleged two of the trees were on his lot, sued Liu and the HOA seeking declaratory relief, quiet title, injunctive relief, and damages; Liu withdrew his application before the HOA issued any decision.
- Liu moved to strike Colyear’s complaint under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), asserting his application was petitioning conduct on an issue of public interest and that Colyear could not show a probability of prevailing; the trial court granted the motion and Colyear appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liu’s HOA application is protected activity under § 425.16(e)(4) as an issue of public interest | Colyear: the application was a private dispute between neighbors, not a public issue | Liu: the application invoked an HOA process central to an ongoing community dispute over enforceability of tree‑trimming covenants | Held: Protected — the HOA tree‑trimming enforcement issue was of public interest to a definable community and Liu’s application was connected to that dispute |
| Whether Colyear’s claims "arise from" Liu’s protected petitioning conduct | Colyear: lawsuit challenges the broader enforceability of Declaration 150, not just Liu’s application; application was merely a trigger | Liu: the gravamen of Colyear’s claims is Liu’s act of petitioning (the application) that allegedly clouded title | Held: Arises from protected activity — the injury‑producing conduct alleged was Liu’s application |
| Whether Colyear demonstrated a probability of prevailing on merits (quiet title / other claims) against Liu | Colyear: photos and his declaration show two trees are on his lot and Liu sought to apply the covenant to his property, clouding title | Liu: he withdrew the application before any HOA action; no adverse claim remained; claims moot and lack standing/ripeness | Held: No probability of success — withdrawal mooted any adverse claim; quiet title and related claims against Liu fail |
| Disposition and remedy | N/A | N/A | Held: Anti‑SLAPP motion granted; order affirmed on appeal; Liu awarded costs on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson Strong–Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (sets broad purpose and two‑step framework for § 425.16)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (plaintiff must show probability of prevailing once defendant meets § 425.16 threshold)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (de novo review standard for anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (evidentiary principles on anti‑SLAPP second prong)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (distinguishing cases where later suit is not "arising from" protected activity)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (both prongs required for anti‑SLAPP relief)
- Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn., 134 Cal.App.4th 1456 (HOA disputes can be matters of public interest)
- Grenier v. Taylor, 234 Cal.App.4th 471 (public‑interest analysis for speech within private organizations)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (examples of when speech is of public interest vs. private)