Marien v. Holland CA4/1, D077586

Background

Plaintiffs Robin Marien, Gabriel Jebb, and Air California Adventure, Inc. (ACA) operate the Torrey Pines Gliderport (TPG) and sued over alleged defamatory statements and related torts originally made by Kuczewski and later reposted online.
The original FAC alleged numerous defamation and related claims against Kuczewski based on videos and website posts criticizing Plaintiffs’ TPG operations; the trial court denied Kuczewski’s anti-SLAPP motion and this was affirmed in Marien I.
After remand Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Marjorie Holland as a defendant, alleging she posted or republished Kuczewski’s videos/statements online at his direction or in concert with him.
Holland moved to strike under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), arguing her postings were protected speech on a public issue; Plaintiffs countered the republished statements concerned only a private dispute and liability is based on republication.
The trial court denied Holland’s anti-SLAPP motion, relying on Marien I reasoning that the alleged statements were not made in connection with a public issue; Holland appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: it rejected collateral estoppel (no privity with Kuczewski), held the republications were not protected as public-issue speech under § 425.16(e)(3)/(4), and declined to reach the anti-SLAPP second prong.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holland’s reposting of Kuczewski’s statements is protected activity under § 425.16(e)(3)/(4) as an issue of public interest	Marien: statements relate to a private dispute about TPG operations and do not implicate a matter of public interest	Holland: repostings concern the public park, safety and management of TPG and thus a public/consumer issue	Held: Not public interest — statements arose from a private controversy and did not meaningfully affect a large public or contribute to public debate
Whether republication of statements originally made at city council is protected under § 425.16(e)(1)/(2)	Marien: claims are based on republication (broadcast online), not privileged council comments	Holland: statements originated at city council public comment and thus are protected	Held: No — plaintiffs base claims on post-meeting republications; anti-SLAPP does not extend perpetual protection to later republications outside official proceedings
Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation because Holland is in privity with Kuczewski (so Marien I controls)	Marien: Holland is effectively represented by Kuczewski; Marien I should bind Holland	Holland: not a party in Marien I and no privity; she was added later	Held: No privity shown; collateral estoppel does not apply
Whether Plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing (anti-SLAPP second step)	Marien: Plaintiffs pleaded facts showing falsity and damages, satisfying probability prong	Holland: Plaintiffs cannot show a probability of prevailing	Held: Court did not reach second prong after finding the conduct was not protected; denial of motion affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarified anti-SLAPP may target specific allegations of protected activity within mixed claims)
City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (statutory definitions in § 425.16(e) govern protected activity analysis)
Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (two-step anti-SLAPP framework)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (only claims meeting both prongs are subject to strike)
Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (private controversy vs. public interest; one cannot create public-figure status by publication)
Rivero v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (public-interest factors: public eye, direct effect on many people, topic of widespread interest)
Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (elements for collateral estoppel/privity)
Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (criticisms of nonpublic business not a matter of public interest)