D'Arrigo Bros. v. United Farmworkers of America
224 Cal. App. 4th 790
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- D'Arrigo sued UFW for breach of contract alleging UFW promised to withdraw or not pursue certain ALRB actions and to refrain from assisting in related proceedings.
- UFW moved to strike under Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) arguing the claim arose from protected petitioning activity.
- ALRB decertification proceedings and ULP charges against D'Arrigo occurred in 2010–2011, including Objection No. 5 and a second ULP charge.
- A February 18, 2011 letter memorialized UFW's promises and contingencies depending on ALRB actions; the General Counsel pursued related allegations using evidence tied to those promises.
- ALRB and judge decisions allowed evidence on the 'promises of benefits' to evaluate totality of circumstances; ALRB proceedings were connected to the alleged unlawful promises.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion; the appellate court reversed, holding the action arose from protected activity and D'Arrigo lacked a probability of prevailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the breach claim arise from protected activity? | D'Arrigo: claim rests on UFW's petitioning actions before ALRB. | UFW: action arises from protected petitioning and should be struck. | Yes; arises from protected activity. |
| Can D'Arrigo show probability of prevailing on breach of contract? | D'Arrigo alleges breach by assisting ALRB in pursuing allegations. | UFW had no contractual obligation to forego cooperation with the General Counsel. | No; cannot show probability of prevailing. |
| Is the private agreement to limit cooperation enforceable against public policy? | Agreement bars cooperation with ALRB/General Counsel; promotes private restraint. | Agreement should be enforced according to its terms. | Public policy disfavors private restraints; cooperation not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (arising-from prong can cover contract claims in certain contexts)
- Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework; threshold showing of arising from protected activity)
- Equilon Enterp. v. Consumer Cause, 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (establishes standards for anti-SLAPP threshold showing)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (probability-of-prevailing standard on remand after threshold showing)
- Astra U.S.A., Inc. v. EEOC, 94 F.3d 738 (1st Cir. 1996) (public policy limitations on settlements restricting regulatory cooperation)
- Cariveau v. Halferty, 83 Cal.App.4th 126 (Cal. App. 2000) (public policy against confidentiality clauses that conceal violations)
- Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Richard A. Glass Co., 175 Cal.App.3d 703 (Cal. App. 1985) (ALRB subpoenas and public-right considerations in workers’ rights)
- In re Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2009) (public-interest considerations in constitutional/association contexts)