44 Cal.App.5th 845
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Neighbors Michael Jeppson and Eric Ley had a long-running personal dispute after the Leys’ dog killed Jeppson’s cat; they settled for $2,000 and a written mutual non‑disparagement agreement drafted with counsel.
- After a separate civil harassment restraining order was entered against Jeppson (stemming from an altercation with neighbor Bonnie Cates), Heidi Ley told Eric Ley about Cates’s complaints.
- Eric Ley posted on Nextdoor under a pseudonym ("Ken Barrett") to warn the neighborhood about Jeppson, attaching photos of Jeppson’s yard signs and alleging a restraining order and surrender of firearms; the site allegedly reached up to 951 neighbors.
- Jeppson sued the Leys for breach of the non‑disparagement clause, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The Leys moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing the Nextdoor post was protected speech on a matter of public interest; the trial court denied the motion and the Leys appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jeppson) | Defendant's Argument (Ley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ley’s Nextdoor post constitutes "protected activity" as a statement in a public forum on an issue of public interest under § 425.16 | Post was a private, neighborhood‑level attack and thus not an issue of public interest; claims arise from unprotected private dispute | Post was made in a public forum to warn the community about safety (restraining order and guns); thus protected activity | Court held the post did not implicate an issue of public interest and denied anti‑SLAPP protection |
| Whether publication on the internet (potential audience of ~951) converts a private dispute into a matter of public interest | Internet publication of a private quarrel does not alone make it public; audience size not shown to have made the topic public | The online medium and potential large audience make the speech public and therefore protected | Court held medium/audience alone insufficient; no evidence post engaged a public conversation or affected a large public beyond the households involved |
| Whether invoking public‑safety concerns (restraining order, guns) gives the speech sufficient public interest connection | Restraining order and restricted gun access were limited to the private dispute and did not elevate the disagreement to a public safety issue | Allegations about a restraining order and danger to neighbors reasonably tied the post to public safety and public interest | Court found the connection "too tenuous" and remote; the post was an attempt to gather ammunition in a local quarrel, not a matter of public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson, 6 Cal.5th 610 (Cal. 2019) (adopts three‑part test for "public interest": public figures, conduct affecting large numbers, or topics of widespread interest)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (private workplace disputes among limited participants are not matters of public interest)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (communications confined to a limited interested community are private, not public, and require closeness to any asserted public interest)
- Workman v. Colichman, 33 Cal.App.5th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (neighbor disputes affecting only prospective buyers or directly interested parties are not public issues)
- Abuemeira v. Stephens, 246 Cal.App.4th 1291 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (widely distributed recordings of a private brawl do not automatically create a public‑interest issue)
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (Cal. 2019) (internet publication does not change the public/private analysis; statements too remotely connected to a public conversation lack anti‑SLAPP protection)