Donovan v. Dan Murphy Foundation
204 Cal. App. 4th 1500
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Donovan filed a complaint Aug 30, 2010 for declaratory relief and wrongful removal against the Dan Murphy Foundation and its current directors.
- He alleged wrongful removal from the Foundation’s Board after raising concerns about financial oversight and governance.
- Donovan sought injunctive relief, appointment of independent counsel and a monitor, and damages and costs.
- The complaint describes years of disputes among directors beginning in 2008 over asset management, governance, information requests, compensation, and investigations.
- On Dec 2, 2009, Donovan was removed as a director by a majority vote; two remaining directors objected.
- Respondents moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute; the trial court granted the motion; on appeal, the court reversed, holding the conduct did not fall within the anti-SLAPP scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal vote was protected activity under anti-SLAPP | Donovan argues removal is not protected speech/petition. | Donovan contends the vote was an exercise of protected rights in a public-interest context. | Removal vote not protected activity under §425.16 |
| Whether board meetings/voting constitute an official proceeding under §425.16(e)(2) | The action arises from governance disputes, not protected statements. | Board meetings and votes are official proceedings authorized by law. | Board meetings of a nonprofit are not an official proceeding authorized by law |
| Whether the removal was in connection with a public issue or public interest under §425.16(e)(4) | Disputes about governance could affect the public given Foundation’s size and oversight. | There is no demonstrated public interest in the governance dispute. | Removal vote not in connection with a public issue or public interest |
| Whether the gravamen implicates protected activity under the statute | Gravamen is wrongful termination retaliation for oversight efforts. | Disputes are private governance issues with no protected activity. | Gravamen did not implicate protected activity; not within §425.16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. Supreme Court 2004) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. Supreme Court 2002) (minimal-merit requirement for SLAPPs)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. Supreme Court 2006) (independent-review of anti-SLAPP orders on appeal)
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. Supreme Court 2006) (official proceeding authorized by law under §425.16(e)(2))
- Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (board proceedings not always 'official proceedings' under the statute)
- Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 47 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. App. 1996) (statements in regulatory/press-like context can fall within §425.16(e)(2))
- Rivero v. AFSCME, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. App. 2003) (private employer disputes do not automatically become public-interest matters)
- Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal.App.4th 133 (Cal. App. 2011) (requires connection to a matter of public interest for broader protections)
- Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, 129 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. App. 2005) (statements in regulatory filings can fall within §425.16(e)(2) where appropriate)
- Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. App. 2008) (public-interest need not be significant; breadth of public-interest concept)
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. App. 2000) (distinguishes public forum/context for anti-SLAPP protections)