21 Cal. App. 5th 1170
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Guarino was appointed Siskiyou County Counsel for a four-year term beginning 2008 and received an appointment letter (relied on as the alleged employment contract).
- Beginning in 2011 the County investigated complaints by subordinate Paula Baca alleging harassment/hostile workplace; an outside firm (Cota Cole LLP) produced reports that exonerated Guarino but recommended changes; Baca sued in federal court in August 2012.
- In fall 2012 the County placed Guarino on administrative leave, refused to execute his chosen counsel’s retention until he resigned, issued a notice of accusation under Gov. Code §27641, and the Board rescinded his reappointment; Guarino resigned and later filed this suit claiming breach of an employment contract and constructive discharge among other claims.
- County, Board members, and County Administrator Odom moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16), arguing the challenged acts arose from protected official‑proceeding/official‑investigative speech and litigation privilege; they also demurred on other grounds.
- The trial court granted the anti‑SLAPP motion as to all defendants and causes of action and sustained demurrers without leave to amend; Guarino appealed the anti‑SLAPP ruling (and the demurrers, which the appellate court did not reach).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of the anti‑SLAPP motion, holding the challenged conduct arose from protected activity and that Guarino could not show a probability of prevailing on his breach‑of‑contract claims because his appointment was statutory (not a private employment contract).
Issues
| Issue | Guarino's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants' conduct arose from activity protected by §425.16 | County investigations, board votes, and related communications were not protected because they were illegal or pretextual | Investigations, accusations, board votes, and related communications were made in official proceedings or in connection with official proceedings and thus are protected speech/petition | Held: Defendants satisfied the first anti‑SLAPP prong; the conduct arose from protected official/ investigatory proceedings and related communications |
| Whether Guarino made a prima facie showing he would prevail on his breach of contract claim (First Cause) | The appointment letter created an enforceable employment contract entitling him to perform duties and precluding removal outside §27641 procedure | Public office appointment is statutory, not contractual; no bilateral employment contract exists to support a breach claim | Held: Guarino could not show probability of success because public employment here is governed by statute (no enforceable private contract) |
| Whether Guarino made a prima facie showing he would prevail on a breach‑for‑constructive‑discharge claim (Fourth Cause) | County’s conduct created intolerable conditions and breached the appointment contract by constructively discharging him | Same defense: actions arose from protected investigatory/official proceedings; no contractual basis for relief | Held: Failed — no contractual basis; anti‑SLAPP second prong not met |
| Whether allegations of illegality (e.g., improper removal) bar anti‑SLAPP protection | Illegality allegations demonstrate the conduct was not privileged and thus not protected | Mere allegations of illegality do not defeat anti‑SLAPP protection; courts resolve legal/factual disputes in prong 2, not by denying the threshold protection if conduct is tied to official proceedings | Held: Allegations of illegality did not prevent application of anti‑SLAPP; disputes reserved for prong two where Guarino failed to show probability of prevailing |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (procedural rules for evaluating anti‑SLAPP evidence)
- City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (official votes and governmental actions can be protected by anti‑SLAPP)
- Hansen v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 171 Cal.App.4th 1537 (internal investigations as official proceedings protected by anti‑SLAPP)
- Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (investigatory and decisional acts by public managers are privileged under anti‑SLAPP)
- McConnell v. Innovative Artists Talent & Literary Agency, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 169 (distinguishable; anti‑SLAPP inapplicable where acts unrelated to official/ investigatory proceedings)
- Miller v. State of California, 18 Cal.3d 808 (public employment terms governed by statute, not private contract)