Geiser v. Kuhns
297 Cal.Rptr.3d 592
Cal.2022Background
- Mercedes and Pablo Caamal lost their jobs after the 2008 recession; their home was purchased at a foreclosure auction by an affiliate of Wedgewood (managed by Gregory Geiser), which sought to evict them.
- The Caamals enlisted ACCE, a housing-advocacy group; ACCE organized protests and sit-ins seeking to negotiate a repurchase or otherwise protest Wedgewood’s practices.
- On March 30, 2016, ~25–30 ACCE supporters picketed on the public sidewalk outside Geiser’s home; chant recorded: “Greg Geiser, come outside! … you can’t hide!” Police observed but did not intervene.
- Geiser filed civil harassment petitions and obtained a temporary restraining order; defendants moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16).
- Trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP prevailing‑party finding (but awarded fees under § 527.6); the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review, applied FilmOn’s two‑step test, reversed the Court of Appeal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geiser) | Defendant's Argument (Kuhns/Caamals/ACCE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does the sidewalk protest implicate a public issue under § 425.16(e)(4)? | The protest targeted a private dispute to coerce Wedgewood to sell back one home; not a public issue. | The demonstration raised broader issues—unfair foreclosure, displacement, and fix‑and‑flip practices—and was organized by a public‑interest group. | Yes. Viewed in context (speaker, audience, location, purpose, timing), the protest may reasonably be understood to implicate public issues. Anti‑SLAPP first step satisfied. |
| 2) What standard governs the first step (movant’s framing/deference)? | Movants’ post‑hoc characterizations should not control; courts should police fabrication. | Movant’s stated purpose and context are probative; speaker knows content and motive. | Objective reasonable‑observer standard applies. Movant’s characterization is relevant if objectively reasonable but not dispositive. |
| 3) Did the protest further public discussion (FilmOn second step)? | The picket was aimed at coercion for a private outcome and did not advance public discourse. | The protest, ACCE’s participation, media attention, and Wedgewood’s response show the demonstration furthered public debate on housing/foreclosure practices. | Yes. The protest furthered public discussion given context and participants; conduct fell within § 425.16(e)(4) protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (articulated two‑step FilmOn test for § 425.16(e)(4): identify public issue; assess contribution to public discussion)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (catchall provision protects expressive conduct; context matters)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (anti‑SLAPP uses a reasonable, objective test suited to pretrial adjudication)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL‑CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (factors for identifying a public issue)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (attributes distinguishing public vs. private interest)
- Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (context can reveal meaning of nonverbal expressive conduct)
- Bikkina v. Mahadevan, 241 Cal.App.4th 70 (example of narrow reading where speech was treated as non‑public)
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 120 Cal.App.4th 90 (statements about a specific company held not to implicate public interest)
- World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Servs., Inc., 172 Cal.App.4th 1561 (communications tied to business ends may be treated as private)