Gotterba v. Travolta
175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 47
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gotterba worked for Atlo (and for Travolta) from 1981–1987 and signed (per Atlo) a four-page 1987 termination agreement that included a confidentiality clause; Gotterba contends an earlier unsigned three-page draft (without confidentiality language) is the enforceable agreement.
- In 2012 Gotterba planned to publish a memoir and had given media interviews; Atlo's attorney (Singer) sent demand letters warning of breach of the asserted confidentiality clause and threatened litigation and large damages.
- Singer also sent a copy of the alleged four-page agreement to the National Enquirer’s parent company and warned of interference liability; Gotterba’s counsel disputed the existence/enforceability of the confidentiality clause.
- Gotterba filed a verified first amended complaint seeking declaratory relief asking the court to declare which termination agreement is enforceable and whether any confidentiality provision exists or is enforceable.
- Atlo moved to strike the complaint under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), arguing the suit arose from Atlo’s pre‑litigation demand letters (protected petitioning) and thus should be dismissed; the trial court denied the motion and Atlo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gotterba’s declaratory relief action "arises from" defendant’s protected petitioning (prelitigation demand letters) such that it is subject to an anti‑SLAPP motion | Gotterba: the complaint seeks judicial declaration of which termination agreement governs and the existence/enforceability of any confidentiality clause — a contract dispute independent of the letters | Atlo: the suit was filed to prevent/neutralize Atlo’s exercise of petitioning (sending demand letters/threatening suit); the letters are the actual basis for the declaratory claim | The court held the complaint does not arise from protected petitioning; the letters may have triggered the suit and be evidentiary, but the claim is founded on a contract dispute about the validity of competing agreements, not on speech/petitioning activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) (anti‑SLAPP protects exercise of constitutional petition/speech rights)
- Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC, 179 Cal.App.4th 1177 (2009) (petitioning abroad not protected by anti‑SLAPP; litigation can form the controversy underpinning declaratory claims)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (distinguishes claims that "arise from" protected activity from those merely triggered by it)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (focus of anti‑SLAPP is defendant's activity giving rise to liability, not form of plaintiff's cause of action)
- Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, 181 Cal.App.4th 1207 (2010) (speech that is evidentiary differs from speech that is the basis of liability for anti‑SLAPP purposes)
- Talega Maint. Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp., 225 Cal.App.4th 722 (2014) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis: threshold “arising from” inquiry, then plaintiff’s probability of prevailing)