Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization
203 Cal. App. 4th 450
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hecimovich, a volunteer fourth-grade basketball coach, faced a disruptive player and contentious parents in Menlo Park's after-school program during 2008-2009.
- Parents and PTO officials escalated the dispute, with communications among PTO leaders and league officials about restricting or banning Hecimovich from coaching.
- Hecimovich sued eight causes of action against the PTO, PTO president, and two commissioners, asserting defamation and related claims.
- Defendants moved to strike under CCP § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), arguing the suit arising from public-issues communications should be dismissed if plaintiff cannot show merit.
- The trial court denied the motion, treating the gravamen as defamation not protected by the First Amendment, and demurred the rest of the claims.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding defamation can be within SLAPP, the matter involved a public-interest issue, and plaintiff failed to show merit on the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can defamation be a protected activity for SLAPP purposes? | Hecimovich contends defamation claims fall outside protected activity. | Defendants contend defamation is not protected under 425.16 | Defamation may be within SLAPP protections |
| Is the dispute an issue of public interest sufficient for SLAPP applicability? | The case concerns safety of children and conduct by volunteers/parents. | Lawsuit centers on private personnel disputes, not public interest. | Yes, safety in youth sports is an issue of public interest |
| Did plaintiff show a probability of prevailing on the merits at step two? | Plaintiff argues there are merits beyond defamation and should be evaluated on amended pleadings. | Plaintiff failed to plead or prove essential elements of the remaining claims. | Plaintiff failed to show likelihood of prevailing on any claim |
| Are the remaining non-defamation claims properly dismissed under SLAPP analysis? | Claims allege various tort/damages theories tied to conduct by PTO officials. | Claims lack pleaded facts, duties, damages, or applicable statutory protections. | Yes, remaining claims lacked merit under SLAPP framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-step SLAPP framework; protected activity defined by statute)
- Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, 171 Cal.App.4th 858 (Cal. App. 2009) (amendment timing and evidence regarding anti-SLAPP motions)
- Terry v. Davis Community Church, 131 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Cal. App. 2005) (public interest when safeguarding children in community settings)
- Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa, 112 Cal.App.4th 1005 (Cal. App. 2003) (trial court may rely on post-complaint evidence for SLAPP when relevant to motion)
- Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc., 187 Cal.App.4th 709 (Cal. App. 2010) (broad definition of public interest scope)