M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co.
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 160
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- MF owns Parcel B and granted Couch Distributing a nonexclusive easement over Parcel B for ingress, egress and utilities in connection with Parcels A and C.
- Couch Distributing uses Parcels A and C for a large beverage distribution operation; Parcel B has been developed, fenced, and used as the main entrance to Couch’s facilities for decades.
- MF sought to use Parcel B as a tertiary public road to access MF’s proposed Manabe-Ow development, triggering City regulatory interaction in Watsonville.
- MF filed a 2010 complaint for quiet title, slander of title, cancellation of cloud on title, and injunctive relief; Couch moved to strike the second, third, and fourth causes under § 425.16.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion as to those three claims; on appeal, the order was reversed as to the second, third, and fourth causes and remanded for consideration consistent with the court’s ruling that the fourth could proceed.
- Key factual disputes include whether MF owns fee simple over Parcel B or merely a right-of-way, and whether published documents in City proceedings cast doubt on MF’s title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arising from protected activity | Second/third arise from publication for City approvals. | Publication was not protected speech related to public issues. | Second and third arise from protected activity. |
| Probability of prevailing on slander of title | Couch’s maps falsely imply ownership, harming MF’s title. | Maps did not falsely claim ownership; MF’s damages uncertain. | MF failed to show probability on slander of title. |
| Probability of prevailing on cancellation of cloud on title | Cloud due to false documents threatens MF’s title and marketability. | No void or voidable instrument; no demonstrated pecuniary loss. | MF failed to show probability on cancellation of cloud on title. |
| Injunctive relief based on protected activity | Blocking use of Parcel B harms MF; warrants injunction. | Injunctive relief premised on nonprotected or encroachment issues. | Injunction claim has minimal merit to proceed on the protected portion; court allowed it to remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (de novo review and minimal merit standard for anti-SLAPP)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-prong test; protected activity and probability of success)
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. App. 2001) (distinguishes threshold applicability from merits of probability of success)
- Midland Pacific Building Corp. v. King, 157 Cal.App.4th 264 (Cal. App. 2007) (statutory speech in planning approvals can trigger anti-SLAPP)
- Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures, 184 Cal.App.4th 1539 (Cal. App. 2010) (mixed protected/unprotected activity in anti-SLAPP context)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (framework for evaluating anti-SLAPP claims; minimal merit standard)