Cross v. Cooper
197 Cal. App. 4th 357
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cross leased a house to the Coopers; lease term ended Aug. 31, 2007; Cross planned to sell and disclosed Megan’s Law information to prospective buyers; Coopers allegedly threatened to disclose a sex offender living nearby to deter or influence showing; Cross alleged interference with sale and related torts; anti-SLAPP motion filed seeking dismissal of all but the lease-breach claim; trial court denied the motion; appellate court reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooper's disclosures were protected activity for public-interest anti-SLAPP purposes | Cross contends disclosures were illegal or private, not protected | Cooper argues disclosures concern a public issue (sex offenders) and fall within §425.16(e)(4) | Yes; disclosures arise from protected public-interest conduct |
| Whether the alleged threats/disclosures were illegal, precluding anti-SLAPP protection | Cross claims extortion/unauthorized use of Megan’s Law information | Cooper contests unlawful intent; facts are disputed | Not conclusively illegal as a matter of law; triable issues remain |
| Whether use of Megan’s Law information was authorized under Penal Code §290.46 | Disclosures were unauthorized or improperly used | Disclosures intended to protect a person at risk; information public | Disputed fact question; not conclusively unauthorized as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (broad construction of public-interest requirement; public concern standard)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (framework for public-interest categories of protected statements)
- Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc., 182 Cal.App.4th 1644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (Megan’s Law information as public-interest protection)
- M.G. v. Time Warner, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses public-interest in child safety; protected conduct)
- Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 110 Cal.App.4th 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (ongoing controversy/ Du Charme rule on public-interest threshold)
- Dowling v. Zimmerman, 85 Cal.App.4th 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (public-interest analysis of communications to a condo board)
- Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (anti-SLAPP limits; Wilbanks narrowing of public-interest scope)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2006) (illegal conduct exceptions to anti-SLAPP protection; narrow scope)