Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency
198 Cal. App. 4th 611
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dean Martin filed a FEHA retaliation, public policy retaliation, racial discrimination, racial harassment, defamation, and wrongful constructive termination claims against Inland Empire Utilities Agency and CEO Atwater.
- Plaintiff alleged Atwater pressured him to take punitive action against a coworker who filed a discrimination complaint, which he refused as unlawful and against policy.
- The trial court denied most demurrers, sustained some without leave to amend, and granted the anti-SLAPP motion with leave to amend as to the defamation claim only.
- Defendants contended the anti-SLAPP motion applied to all causes of action based on statements at a board meeting (Oct 7, 2009) and related conduct, including acts outside the meeting.
- The court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion became muddled in form—initially signaling denial, then granting with leave to amend for defamation—leading to cross-appeals about scope.
- The reviewing court affirmed, holding the anti-SLAPP order applied only to the fifth cause of action (defamation); the other claims were not subject to SLAPP dismissal, and the order granting leave to amend functionally denied the motion for those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of anti-SLAPP dismissal | M asserts SLAPP should bar all claims as they arise from protected speech. | Agency/Atwater contend SLAPP applies to all claims tied to Oct 7, 2009 statements. | Anti-SLAPP applied only to defamation; other claims not dismissed. |
| Leave to amend under anti-SLAPP | Plaintiff could amend defamation claim to cure pleading deficiencies. | SLAPP grants may not include leave to amend. | Grant of leave to amend was effectively a denial; the court properly denied the motion as to the defamation claim. |
| Procedural handling of evidentiary objections | Court should rule on objections before ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion. | Objections either were resolved or immaterial to prong analysis. | Error in not ruling beforehand, but harmless because no shifting burden occurred. |
| Prevailing party for attorney fees | If anti-SLAPP partial win; fees may be recoverable. | Prevailing party status requires complete or practical win; here no prevailing party. | No appellate jurisdiction to award attorney fees; the motion outcome was a functional denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010) (broadly construing anti-SLAPP; two-step process)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (discussion of SLAPP abuse; safeguards in procedure)
- Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. App. 2001) (no implied right to amend after prima facie showing on first prong)
- Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, 171 Cal.App.4th 858 (Cal. App. 2009) (amendment allowed where evidence prompts malice need not risk delay)
- Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc., 122 Cal.App.4th 1049 (Cal. App. 2004) (no right to amend to avoid SLAPP when no prima facie first-prong showings)
- Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco, 168 Cal.App.4th 992 (Cal. App. 2008) (court may deny leave to amend after prima facie showing)
- Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. App. 2007) (gravamen of complaint governs SLAPP applicability; not protected speech)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (four categories for acts arising from petition/free speech)