76 Cal.App.5th 651
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Pacific purchased the U.S.-built barge La Encina, planned a hull rebuild using 58 U.S. steel panels, and temporarily had 39 panels positioned and tack‑welded in Ensenada before moving them to Pacific’s San Diego yard. Tack welds were later removed and the Sandpiper was assembled entirely in the United States.
- Pacific applied for and the Coast Guard issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for the Sandpiper after an NVDC inquiry; the NVDC later closed its review.
- Curtin sued Pacific under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), alleging Pacific was ineligible for coastwise endorsement (Jones Act violation) and fraudulently obtained the endorsement, which led to Pacific winning USACE dredging contracts. Curtin’s UCL claim rested solely on the alleged Jones Act violation and fraud on the Coast Guard.
- Pacific moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16); the trial court found the claim arose from protected petitioning but denied the motion, concluding Curtin’s expert showed minimal merit.
- Pacific appealed; Curtin voluntarily dismissed the trial complaint during the appeal and moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The Court of Appeal held the dismissal during the pending appeal was void and the appeal was not moot because reversal could entitle Pacific to anti‑SLAPP attorney fees.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding Curtin failed to show a probability of prevailing because the Coast Guard’s documentation/endorsement regime and its conclusive agency determination preempt state adjudication of the same Jones Act eligibility issue; the UCL claim was therefore subject to being struck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal after plaintiff dismissed complaint | Dismissal renders appeal moot; no relief available | Dismissal was void because trial court lacked jurisdiction after appeal; reversal can award anti‑SLAPP fees so appeal is live | Appeal not moot; dismissal during pendency of appeal was void and reversal can provide effective relief (attorney fees) |
| Whether Curtin’s UCL claim "arises from" protected petitioning | Claim challenges bidding/performance (contracting conduct), not Coast Guard petitioning | Claim is grounded in Pacific’s application to the Coast Guard for coastwise endorsement (protected petitioning) | Claim arises from protected petitioning activity (Coast Guard endorsement application) |
| Whether Curtin demonstrated probability of prevailing on the merits | Disputed facts (tack‑welds in Mexico) present triable issues; claim has minimal merit | Coast Guard has exclusive authority to determine coastwise eligibility; its determination is conclusive and federal law preempts state challenge | Curtin failed to show probability of success; claim preempted because it conflicts with federal regulatory scheme and Coast Guard determinations |
| Waiver of federal preemption defense on anti‑SLAPP motion | Pacific did not adequately present preemption at trial; defense waived on appeal | Preemption was raised in answer and in oral argument; issue may be decided where facts undisputed | No waiver; appellate consideration proper because relevant facts were in the record and preemption disposes of claim as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (summary‑judgment‑like anti‑SLAPP procedure)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (plaintiff’s burden to show probability of prevailing)
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (state law fraud‑on‑federal‑agency claims preempted where they conflict with federal regulatory enforcement scheme)
- Douglas v. Seacoast Projects, Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (federal primacy in vessel registration/documentation and coastwise regulation)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (presumption against preemption where States traditionally regulate, and when it does not apply)
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (history of significant federal presence in maritime regulation)
- LaPlante v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 94 Cal.App.4th 282 (maritime regulation traditionally federal; preemption principles in maritime context)