Country Side Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. Ivie
193 Cal. App. 4th 1110
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Country Side Villas HOA and Ivie dispute who bears balcony and siding maintenance costs.
- Ivie criticized the board's new interpretation and circulated a recall petition.
- Ivie repeatedly requested association financial documents; manager refused; confidentiality and potential suit discussed.
- October 15, 2008: Country Side filed a complaint; first through fourth causes seek declaratory relief on governance issues.
- February 25, 2009: Country Side amended the complaint to include ADR certification; anti-SLAPP motion filed by IvieFebruary 12, 2009 cross-complaint
- June 10, 2009: Court granted Ivie’s anti-SLAPP motion, ruling the amendment created a new 60-day period and that the claim arose from protected activity; judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the anti-SLAPP motion | Ivie timely under 60 days of first amended complaint | Original complaint controls; amendment not substantive | Timely; amendment substantive; first amended complaint governs |
| Arising from protected activity | Complaint arose from Ivie’s protected speech about HOA actions | Action seeks declaratory relief not tied to protected activity | Action arose from protected activity |
| Probability of prevailing on merits against Ivie | Declaratory relief seeks interpretation; not damages; merits shown | Ivies’ motion should be granted because relief cannot be obtained against her | No probability of prevailing against Ivie; anti-SLAPP properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (public-interest speech includes HOA matters)
- Pinnacle Holdings, Inc. v. Simon, 31 Cal.App.4th 1430 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (declaratory relief parties must be proper defendants)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; protected activity threshold)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (two-prong anti-SLAPP analysis; protection require both steps)
- Wang v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 153 Cal.App.4th 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (arising-from protected-activity prong requires connection to core claim)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal.App.3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (amendments to pleadings can affect timeliness analysis)
- Cohen v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.2d 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (clerical vs substantive amendments guiding amendment treatment)