Renewable Resources Coalition, Inc. v. Pebble Mines Corp.
218 Cal. App. 4th 384
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Renewable Resources Coalition (Coalition), an Alaska nonprofit opposing Pebble Mine, contracted fundraiser Fund Raising, Inc. (FRI) (principal Kaplan). After their relationship ended, Kaplan sold the Coalition’s campaign documents to the Jermain law firm for $50,000.
- Jermain (representing Pebble Inc. and Pebble LP) used those documents to lodge an Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) complaint alleging election-law violations; the APOC matter was settled with no finding of liability.
- The Coalition sued Kaplan and (as relevant here) the Pebble defendants for inducing breach of contract / misappropriation — alleging the Pebble defendants induced FRI to deliver confidential documents and that the sale caused reputational and fundraising harm tied to the APOC complaint.
- 24 days after filing, the Pebble defendants moved to strike the Coalition’s causes of action under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing their APOC petition and related publicity were protected petitioning/speech.
- The trial court granted the special motion to strike and awarded the Pebble defendants $30,000 in attorney fees (they had sought ~$170k). The Coalition appealed; the Pebble defendants cross‑appealed the fee award.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: the gravamen of the Coalition’s claims was the purchase/inducement to acquire confidential documents (not the filing/publicizing of the APOC complaint), so the anti‑SLAPP statute did not apply; the fee award was mooted by reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coalition’s claims "arise from" protected petition/speech (anti‑SLAPP threshold) | Coalition: defendants are sued for bribing/inducing FRI to sell confidential documents — not for filing APOC complaint; that purchase is unprotected illegal conduct | Pebble: their use of the documents to file an APOC complaint and publicize the allegations are protected acts in furtherance of petition/free speech | Held: Anti‑SLAPP inapplicable — gravamen is the wrongful purchase of documents, not the subsequent APOC petition/publicity |
| Whether trial court improperly focused on damages (APOC defense costs/publicity) instead of gravamen | Coalition: gravamen is wrongful acquisition of documents; damages flowing from APOC are secondary | Pebble: damages stem from their protected APOC complaint and publicity connecting to public interest | Held: Trial court erred by focusing on damages; analysis must focus on allegedly wrongful, injury‑producing conduct |
| Whether leave to amend should have been denied after early SLAPP motion | Coalition: should be allowed to amend to add trade‑secret/conversion claims if SLAPP dismissal was improper and motion was filed very early | Pebble: denial appropriate to prevent evasion of SLAPP process | Held: Because SLAPP dismissal was erroneous and motion was brought very early, leave to amend would be appropriate on remand (trial court erred to bar amendment) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding only $30,000 fees after prevailing on SLAPP (cross‑appeal) | Coalition: N/A (argues SLAPP inapplicable so no fee entitlement) | Pebble: court abused discretion by reducing requested fees from ~$169,795 to $30,000 | Held: Cross‑appeal moot — reversal of SLAPP ruling makes Pebble not prevailing parties; fee award vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson Strong‑Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (overview of SLAPP and two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (act must be in furtherance of petition/free speech to trigger anti‑SLAPP)
- Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, 45 Cal.4th 309 (gravamen/principal thrust analysis for SLAPP applicability)
- Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 181 (gravamen determines anti‑SLAPP reach)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (standard of review for anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Castleman v. Sagaser, 216 Cal.App.4th 481 (gravamen is allegedly wrongful, injury‑producing conduct)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal.App.4th 1169 (defining acts on which liability is based for SLAPP analysis)
- Lindros v. Governing Bd. of the Torrance Unified School Dist., 9 Cal.3d 524 (definition of "gravamen")
- Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (rule disfavoring amendment after anti‑SLAPP prima facie showing)
- Castillo v. Pacheco, 150 Cal.App.4th 242 (describing SLAPP characteristics)