Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc.
17 Cal. App. 5th 245
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Ralphs (and its store brands) sued Victory Consultants and Jerry Mailhot alleging trespass and seeking injunctive relief after paid petition circulators set up tables and solicited signatures directly in front of two Ralphs stores, allegedly blocking fire lanes, obstructing customer ingress/egress, and harassing customers.
- Ralphs' employees asked the solicitors to leave; police declined to remove them. Ralphs obtained a temporary restraining order barring petitioning on the store premises and set a preliminary injunction hearing.
- Respondents moved under California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP §425.16), arguing the suit targeted protected petitioning/speech on matters of public interest and lacked merit.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, excluding portions of a private investigator’s (Mendez) declaration as hearsay, and found Ralphs failed to show a probability of prevailing because it lacked admissible evidence that the solicitors were Respondents’ agents.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held Ralphs’ trespass cause of action did not arise from protected activity because the solicitation occurred on private property in front of individual store entrances (not a public forum), and it found Ralphs presented sufficient prima facie evidence of agency to meet the minimal-merit threshold on trespass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trespass claim arises from activity protected by the anti‑SLAPP statute (i.e., petitioning/free speech in a public forum) | Ralphs: Solicitation occurred on private property immediately in front of individual store entrances (not a public forum), so conduct is unprotected and anti‑SLAPP does not apply | Victory/Mailhot: Soliciting signatures is protected petitioning activity on matters of public interest and falls within §425.16(e) categories | Held: Anti‑SLAPP does not apply — areas in front of the individual stores are private, utilitarian entrances (Pruneyard/ Ralphs Grocery framework), not public forums; Respondents failed to carry burden to show protected activity |
| Admissibility of portions of Mendez declaration (hearsay/declaration against interest) | Ralphs: Mendez’s recounting of a solicitor’s statements identifying himself was admissible (argued declaration against interest) and the business card/paper corroborate agency | Respondents: Statements are hearsay; no exception applies because declarant (Pierce) was available | Held: Court properly excluded the testimonial hearsay portions; but retained and considered tangible items handed to Mendez (business card, paper) and non‑hearsay portions |
| Whether Ralphs met the anti‑SLAPP second prong (probability of prevailing on trespass — agency element) | Ralphs: Evidence (store declarations identifying the pictured solicitor, business card/paper linking him to Victory/Mailhot, standard contractor agreement showing methods/payment, and other facts) sufficed to show a prima facie agency and trespass claim of minimal merit | Respondents: Declared solicitors are independent contractors and not agents; Victory disclaims control and direction of solicitors | Held: Even assuming anti‑SLAPP applied, Ralphs met its minimal burden — the proffered evidence suffices to create a prima facie showing of agency and trespass; credibility conflicts go to trial, not the anti‑SLAPP determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (sets two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and burdens)
- Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 55 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 2012) (distinguishes common areas of shopping centers from areas immediately outside individual store entrances for public‑forum analysis)
- Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 23 Cal.3d 899 (Cal. 1979) (California Constitution can protect speech on privately owned property under forum‑analysis balancing)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (anti‑SLAPP movant’s burden to identify allegations of protected activity)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (standard for plaintiff to show probability of prevailing under anti‑SLAPP second prong)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (plaintiff needs only minimal merit to survive anti‑SLAPP)
- Trader Joe's Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 73 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (applying Pruneyard balancing to retail/store settings)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (property owner’s right to exclude is fundamental)