81 Cal.App.5th 82
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Golden Gate Fields (GGF) operates a horse-racing track; protesters (four individuals) entered the track, lit incendiary devices, lay on the track, and linked arms, delaying races; they were removed and criminally charged.
- Golden Gate sued the individual trespassers and Direct Action Everywhere (an animal-rights nonprofit), asserting trespass and intentional interference with prospective economic relations and seeking an injunction against further trespass.
- The complaint alleges that the individuals were “affiliated with” Direct Action and pleads various vicarious-liability theories (agent, co-conspirator, aider-and-abettor, alter ego) without detailed factual allegations tying Direct Action to the trespass.
- Direct Action moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute, arguing the suit targeted its protected speech/petitioning activities (petitions, protests, livestreaming) and denying involvement in the civil disobedience; it did not demur or bring other dispositive motions.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion, finding Direct Action failed to show the claims arose from protected activity; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that claims premised on another’s illegal conduct are not subject to anti‑SLAPP striking unless the defendant’s liability rests on constitutionally protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti‑SLAPP applies to claims alleging vicarious liability for others’ non‑protected torts | Golden Gate: claims arise from the tortious trespass and resulting economic harm, not protected speech | Direct Action: liability allegations stem from its advocacy and communicative acts (petitions, organizing protests) and thus are protected | Anti‑SLAPP does not apply because the claims target the underlying unlawful trespass, not protected activity; denial affirmed |
| Whether the complaint’s speech‑related allegations make the claims ‘‘arise from’’ protected activity | Golden Gate: speech allegations are background; the core injury is the trespass | Direct Action: speech/petitioning activity is the basis for alleging its involvement | Court: the anti‑SLAPP nexus test focuses on the act that supplies elements of the tort; here the tortious entry is the wrong complained of, so nexus fails |
| Whether vague/conclusory vicarious‑liability allegations should be resolved via anti‑SLAPP or other procedural tools | Golden Gate: anti‑SLAPP inappropriate; demurrer/summary motion is the proper vehicle | Direct Action: anti‑SLAPP is necessary for early protection (stay discovery, fee shifting) | Court: such pleading defects may be addressed by demurrer or summary challenge; anti‑SLAPP is not a catchall when the underlying wrong is non‑protected conduct |
| Whether request for injunction is subject to anti‑SLAPP | Golden Gate: injunction seeks to enjoin unlawful trespass, not protected activity | Direct Action: (implicitly) overarching petition/speech context | Court: injunctive relief to stop unlawful trespass is not subject to anti‑SLAPP |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (explaining the two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis and nexus test)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (defining "arising from" and limiting anti‑SLAPP to claims based on protected acts)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (protected activity that only provides context cannot be stricken)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (prima facie showing requirement for step one of anti‑SLAPP)
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (limitations on vicarious liability for advocacy absent authorization or incitement of unlawful acts)
- Spencer v. Mowat, 46 Cal.App.5th 1024 (conspiracy/agency is a doctrine of liability; anti‑SLAPP focuses on underlying tort, not evidentiary acts)
- Contreras v. Dowling, 5 Cal.App.5th 394 (distinguished: where alleged acts against defendant are per se protected legal services, anti‑SLAPP may apply)
- Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC, 50 Cal.App.5th 1037 (refusing anti‑SLAPP where underlying wrong was non‑protected tort committed by an agent)