35 Cal.App.5th 1062
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioners (including Rudisill) filed a verified petition for writ of mandate against the California Coastal Commission and the City of Los Angeles challenging permit processing for a multi‑lot Venice development (416–426 Grand Blvd), alleging impermissible "piecemealing." Real Parties in Interest (Xingyun, 422, 424, 426 Grand) were identified as real parties in interest and owners/participants.
- Petition sought writ relief directing agencies to treat the project as a unified development, to set aside an approval, remand permits, and awarded attorney fees.
- Real Parties filed anti‑SLAPP motions arguing the petition asserted claims arising from their protected petitioning activity (filing coastal development permit applications) and that petitioners could not show a likelihood of success.
- Trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motions and awarded petitioners attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c) / § 128.5, finding the anti‑SLAPP motions "totally and completely without merit."
- Real Parties appealed only the sanction/fees order; the appellate court reviewed the legal question de novo 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 and reviewed the sanctions award for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioners) | Defendant's Argument (Real Parties) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a real party in interest in a mandamus proceeding is a "person" against whom a cause of action is asserted under §425.16(b)(1) | Petitioners: No — the petition names only agencies as respondents; Real Parties are not defendants and thus not "persons" targeted by anti‑SLAPP | Real Parties: Yes — a real party in interest has a direct interest and may be a "person" against whom claims (including fee claims) are asserted | Court: Reasonable attorneys could conclude real parties were "persons" for §425.16 purposes; trial court erred to find motion totally meritless |
| Whether the petition’s claims arise from Real Parties’ protected petitioning activity (so subject to anti‑SLAPP) | Petitioners: No — the petition challenges agency decisions (acts of governance), not the Real Parties’ petitioning; thus not protected conduct | Real Parties: Yes — allegations target their permit filings and piecemealing; submitting permit applications is protected petitioning conduct | Court: Close call — petition’s primary relief challenges agency decisions (not protected activity), but fee claim and allegations that Real Parties’ filings contributed to the harm could reasonably be viewed as arising from protected petitioning; trial court abused discretion in finding the anti‑SLAPP motion totally devoid of merit |
| Whether anti‑SLAPP motion was frivolous such that sanctions under §128.5 / §425.16(c) were proper | Petitioners: Anti‑SLAPP motion was frivolous and made to delay; fees appropriate | Real Parties: Motion had a reasonable legal basis; sanctions inappropriate | Court: Reversed sanctions — reasonable basis existed for the anti‑SLAPP motion; award was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether attorney‑fee claim in petition could directly target Real Parties (relevance to protected activity) | Petitioners: Fee request was against agencies only | Real Parties: Fee prayer could be assessed against any opposing parties, including real parties who participated | Court: Fee claim could be asserted against real parties in interest and that claim would necessarily involve their conduct; supports reasonableness of anti‑SLAPP motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (anti‑SLAPP targets claims based on protected conduct, not claim form)
- San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa Cty. Emps.’ Retirement Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (claims challenging government decisions are often "acts of governance" not protected)
- M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co., Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 180 (submission of information in permitting process can be protected petitioning)
- Park v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 2 Cal.5th 1057 (claim is subject to anti‑SLAPP only if the petitioning/speech itself supplies elements of the challenged claim)
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 37 Cal.4th 1169 (real party in interest may be treated as a party for purposes of fee awards when actively participating)
- Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 156 Cal.App.4th 151 (award of §1021.5 fees against a real party in interest who actively participated)
- Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP, 193 Cal.App.4th 435 (frivolous defined as totally and completely without merit; standard for §128.5)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (anti‑SLAPP focuses on defendant’s activity that gives rise to liability)
- City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (distinguishes government decisions from deliberations for anti‑SLAPP)
- Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. v. Pearl Street, LLC, 109 Cal.App.4th 1308 (claims based on illegal practices, not merely on documents filed with a board)
- Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales, 20 Cal.App.5th 924 (defendant may bring anti‑SLAPP motion even if petition’s allegations of protected activity are disputed)