35 Cal. App. 5th 1062
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Petitioners filed a verified petition for writ of mandate against the California Coastal Commission and City of Los Angeles challenging approvals/processing of coastal development permits for the "Grand Blvd Unified Development;" Real Parties were named as real parties in interest and alleged owners/participants in permit filings.
- Petition alleged Real Parties filed separate CDP applications (demolition and new construction) amounting to improper "piecemealing," and sought writ relief setting aside approvals, remanding permits, processing the project as a unified development, and attorney fees.
- Real Parties moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16); the trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion and granted Petitioners’ sanctions motion, finding the anti‑SLAPP motion frivolous and awarding $28,795.70 in fees.
- Real Parties appealed only the sanctions/fee award, arguing (1) a real party in interest in mandamus is a "person" against whom a cause of action can be asserted for anti‑SLAPP purposes, and (2) the Petition targeted their petitioning activity (permit filings), which is protected.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo the legal question whether a real party in interest qualifies as a "person" under § 425.16(b)(1) and otherwise reviewed the sanctions ruling for abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court reversed the fee award, holding a reasonable attorney could conclude Real Parties’ anti‑SLAPP motion had merit because (a) naming Real Parties as real parties in interest plausibly alleged claims against them, and (b) the Petition could be read to challenge conduct (permit filings) that is protected petitioning activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a real party in interest in a mandamus proceeding is a "person" against whom a "cause of action" is asserted for anti‑SLAPP purposes | Petitioners: Real parties in interest are not defendants; the Petition asserts claims only against the agencies, so § 425.16 doesn't apply to Real Parties | Real Parties: being named as real parties in interest alleges a direct interest and potential liability; thus they are "persons" for § 425.16(b)(1) | Held: A reasonable attorney could conclude a real party in interest is a "person" against whom a claim is asserted under § 425.16; reversal of sanctions on this ground. |
| Whether the Petition challenges protected petitioning activity (permit filings) or only unprotected acts of governance (agency decisions) | Petitioners: The mandamus claims target the agencies' decisions (acts of governance), not Real Parties' permit applications, so the anti‑SLAPP statute does not apply | Real Parties: Petition alleges their filing of CDP applications (piecemealing) and seeks fees potentially assessed against them; permit filings are petitioning conduct protected by § 425.16(e) | Held: Close call, but a reasonable attorney could conclude the Petition alleged claims arising from Real Parties' protected petitioning conduct (not solely acts of governance), so the motion was not "totally and completely without merit." |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (statute targets claims based on protected conduct; anti‑SLAPP may challenge any claim founded on protected activity)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (moving defendant must make threshold showing that challenged claims arise from protected activity)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (a claim is subject to anti‑SLAPP only if the speech/petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of)
- San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (acts of governance mandated by law are not protected petitioning activity)
- M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co., Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 180 (anti‑SLAPP can apply to claims seeking orders affecting property rights and to permitting‑related submissions)
- Midland Pacific Building Corp. v. King, 157 Cal.App.4th 264 (submission of information in permitting process can be protected petitioning activity)
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 37 Cal.4th 1169 (real party in interest may be regarded as a party for fee awards when actively involved)
- Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 156 Cal.App.4th 151 (real party in interest can be a "party" for purposes of attorney fee awards under § 1021.5)
- Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP, 193 Cal.App.4th 435 (frivolous under § 128.5 means "totally and completely without merit")