32 Cal. App. 5th 458
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Richmond issued medical-marijuana collective permits; three collectives (RPG, Holistic, 7 Stars) operated while RCCC lost its permit after amendments reduced permits from six to three.
- RCCC sued under the Cartwright Act alleging a conspiracy by the collectives and principals to prevent RCCC from leasing or buying property in Richmond (including bogus deals, intimidation of landlords, and false threats) to monopolize the market.
- RCCC’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC) relied heavily on a 25-paragraph declaration by former co-defendant Lisa Hirschhorn describing detailed conspiratorial conduct aimed at blocking RCCC from acquiring property.
- Defendants filed separate anti-SLAPP motions; Judge Goode denied 7 Stars’ motion after concluding the TAC’s gravamen was private anticompetitive conduct, not protected petitioning, and struck only some allegations as to RPG in a separate order.
- 7 Stars appealed the denial; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the TAC was not based on protected activity and anti-SLAPP did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCCC’s Cartwright Act claim "arises from" protected petitioning/speech (anti-SLAPP step 1) | RCCC argued the TAC alleges private, anticompetitive conduct (conspiracy to restrain trade) as the gravamen, not protected petitioning | 7 Stars contended the alleged conduct was petitioning/protected activity (influencing public bodies and public debate), so anti-SLAPP should apply | Court: TAC’s gravamen is private, coercive conduct to deprive RCCC of property and market access; protected activity, if present, is incidental, so anti-SLAPP step 1 not met |
| Whether defendants met their burden to show allegations targeted protected activity and shift the burden to plaintiff (form/record sufficiency) | RCCC relied on Hirschhorn’s detailed declaration supporting its allegations | 7 Stars argued defendants made a prima facie showing and relied on record and prior complaints | Court: Defendants failed to fairly characterize the TAC and did not adequately show how identified allegations were protected; denial affirmed |
| Whether the anti-SLAPP denial should be reversed on de novo review of legal standards/case law | RCCC argued trial court applied correct two-step anti-SLAPP framework and evidence shows non-protected conduct | 7 Stars urged de novo review supports reversal given protected petitioning involved | Court: Applying governing anti-SLAPP authorities and de novo review, appellate court agreed with trial court that the claim does not arise from protected activity and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moriarty v. Laramar Management Corp., 224 Cal.App.4th 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (criticizes selective reading of complaints in anti-SLAPP motions)
- Grewal v. Jammu, 191 Cal.App.4th 977 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses delay and fee consequences of meritless anti-SLAPP appeals)
- Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization, 203 Cal.App.4th 450 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (explains anti-SLAPP two-step analysis)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (sets standard for showing claim arises from protected activity)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (clarifies that defendant’s act underlying the claim must itself be protected)
- Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (focus on gravamen/principal thrust when assessing anti-SLAPP applicability)
- Wang v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 153 Cal.App.4th 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (actions related to permits were incidental and did not give rise to SLAPP protection)
- Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 133 Cal.App.4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (protected conduct can be incidental to the gravamen and not trigger anti-SLAPP)
- Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health, 19 Cal.App.5th 203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming denial of an anti-SLAPP motion where defendant misread the complaint)