Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Union distributed flyers at Cobble Oaks during the Road Machinery labor dispute in November–December 2009.
- Price, Road Machinery VP/GM California division, was not part of the bargaining committee nor involved in negotiations.
- Flyers included Price’s name, apartment number, and business cell phone, urging neighbors to complain to him.
- Price and his wife reported fear and embarrassment; police offered no immediate action.
- On January 19, 2010 Price sued for defamation, false light, and related claims; Union moved to strike under 425.16.
- Trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion; Union appealed limiting to defamation and false light.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defamation/false light arise from protected activity | Price | Union | Yes, arising from Union's free-speech activity |
| Whether statements pertained to a public issue or public interest | Price | Union | No public issue or public interest shown |
| Whether anti-SLAPP threshold was met under the two-step analysis | Price | Union | Threshold not met; no need to reach probability of prevail |
| Whether the trial court should apply a mixed-action analysis | Price | Union | Not necessary to decide; threshold failure forecloses further analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (illegal speech defeats anti-SLAPP shield when illegal as a matter of law)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (public interest requires substantial public concern, not mere curiosity)
- Rivero v. AFSCME, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (labor disputes and private interests do not automatically create public interest)
- Du Charme v. IBEW, 110 Cal.App.4th 107 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (threshold showing must tie to protected petition/free-speech activity)
- Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2009) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis required)
- Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2010) (appeals court reviews anti-SLAPP orders de novo)
- Soukup v. Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (early-stage dismissal to curb meritless lawsuits)