64 Cal.App.5th 156
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Cal Coast proposed a small private secondary school on land adjacent to Clews Horse Ranch; the City prepared and adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) after a noise study concluded impacts would be below significance thresholds.
- Clews Horse Ranch (Christian and Barbara Clews and CLL), represented by attorney defendants (Kevin Johnson APLC, Kevin Johnson, Jeanne MacKinnon), administratively appealed project approvals but did not timely appeal adoption of the MND; they then filed CEQA litigation seeking a writ and injunctive relief.
- The trial court denied the CEQA petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding Clews had not exhausted administrative remedies and, on the merits, a fair argument for an EIR was lacking.
- Cal Coast then sued Clews Horse Ranch and the attorney defendants for malicious prosecution, alleging the CEQA suit lacked probable cause and was pursued with malice (motives alleged: block/delay development, concealments related to Christian, and avoid potential malpractice exposure).
- The attorney defendants filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike; the trial court denied it, finding Cal Coast showed a probability of prevailing on malicious prosecution against all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed as to Clews Horse Ranch but reversed as to the attorney defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had probable cause to pursue CEQA litigation challenging the MND on noise grounds | Cal Coast: the administrative record contained only speculative, person-specific complaints (horses/riders); no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that an EIR was required for noise, so suit lacked probable cause | Defendants: testimony and comments in the record raised environmental/noise concerns; attorneys had expert support and reasonable grounds to litigate | Held: Cal Coast showed a probability of prevailing that at least the noise-related CEQA theory was pursued without probable cause (applies to all defendants) |
| Whether Clews Horse Ranch pursued the CEQA suit with malice (improper purpose) | Cal Coast: Clews used litigation to block/delay development, had a pattern of harassing opposing land users, and sought to deprive Cal Coast of beneficial use | Clews: pursued genuine environmental and safety concerns; hostile conduct toward development does not alone show malice | Held: Prima facie evidence of malice existed as to Clews Horse Ranch; anti-SLAPP denial affirmed for those defendants |
| Whether the attorney defendants acted with malice or can be charged with their client’s improper motives | Cal Coast: attorneys knew or should have known of client motives and lack of merit; continuing suit permits an inference of malice | Attorneys: client motives cannot be simply imputed; they had declarations from municipal/environmental lawyers and believed claims tenable; settlement communications addressed merits | Held: Cal Coast failed to make a prima facie showing of malice as to the attorney defendants; anti-SLAPP denial reversed as to them |
| Proper anti-SLAPP analysis/result | Cal Coast: malicious prosecution arises from petitioning but the claim has at least minimal merit | Defendants: the suit attacks protected petitioning and should be struck under anti-SLAPP because no probable cause or malice exists | Held: The court applied the two-step anti-SLAPP framework, accepted the activity was protected, and concluded Cal Coast met its burden versus Clews but not versus the attorneys; appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus, 10 Cal.5th 479 (Cal. 2020) (overview of CEQA review stages; when MND vs EIR is required)
- Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego, 19 Cal.App.5th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (prior appellate decision affirming denial of CEQA petition)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (elements of malicious prosecution claim)
- Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co., 6 Cal.5th 931 (Cal. 2019) (anti-SLAPP two-step, summary-judgment-like standard)
- Daniels v. Robbins, 182 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (malice requires more than lack of probable cause; motives typically proved circumstantially)
- Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal.App.4th 1522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (probable cause analysis in malicious prosecution considers both facts known and legal theories asserted)
- Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (when lay observations can constitute substantial evidence in CEQA context)
- Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino, 1 Cal.App.5th 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (speculative nonexpert predictions are not substantial evidence for a fair argument)
- Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Hass, 46 Cal.App.5th 589 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (objective attorney-based standard for probable cause in malicious prosecution against counsel)
- Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham, 72 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (malicious-prosecution improper-purpose examples)