San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction CA4/1
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 559
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- SanDOG filed a section 1090 taxpayers' action seeking to void contracts with Har Construction and others due to alleged financial interests by District officials.
- The District superintendent and several Board members faced criminal charges related to District construction projects, prompting SanDOG's action.
- Har Construction moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (section 425.16) after SanDOG amended its pleading.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding SanDOG had standing and a probability of prevailing on the merits.
- Har Construction challenged timeliness, arguing the motion was filed more than 60 days after the amended complaint but within 60 days of a stipulation changing the District to real party in interest.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the motion was untimely and the public interest exemption (section 425.17) applied, rendering the anti-SLAPP statute inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the anti-SLAPP motion | Har Construction moved within 60 days of stipulation; timely. | Delay after amendment and long litigation warranted late filing. | Untimely; trial court abused discretion if treating stipulation as substantive. |
| Public interest exemption applicability | SanDOG established private enforcement necessary and public benefit. | No disproportionate burden shown; exemption should not apply. | Exemption applies; public interest exception precludes an anti-SLAPP dismissal. |
| Private enforcement necessity and District's role | District could not intervene due to quorum; private enforcement necessary. | District statements show potential future action; private enforcement not necessary. | Private enforcement was necessary at the time of filing; SanDOG appropriately pursued the action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbane Building Co. v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.4th 1527 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (taxpayers may sue to void contracts under 1090; district status matters for standing)
- Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard, 222 Cal.App.4th 1447 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (public interest exception elements; private enforcement necessity and burden considerations)
- Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg, 166 Cal.App.4th 772 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (timeliness and scheduling of anti-SLAPP motions; early dismissal aims)
- Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow, 199 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (timing of late anti-SLAPP motions; discretion balanced against purpose)
- Save Westwood Village v. Luskin, 233 Cal.App.4th 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (public interest exception framework for anti-SLAPP)
- Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc., 233 Cal.App.4th 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (section 1090 policy and public policy considerations)