G057264
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 17, 2020Background
- The City of Irvine offered a 130-acre ARDA site within the Great Park for a state veterans cemetery; the Legislature designated the site in 2014. The City later explored a land-swap to relocate the cemetery.
- Opponents gathered signatures to force a June 2018 referendum (Measure B); voters rejected the land-swap by ~63%. Petitioner Sandlin was a prominent “Yes on B” leader; Real Parties (Pope, Woods, McGill) led the “No on B” effort.
- Real Parties ran for municipal office and submitted brief candidate statements to the official voter pamphlet stating (among other things) the veterans cemetery was “in/at the Great Park” and pledging to “immediately” begin construction.
- Sandlin filed a writ under Elections Code §13313 seeking deletion of those portions as false or misleading; a different earlier judgment (Referendum Case) had found some ballot arguments misleading.
- The trial court denied Sandlin’s writ petition on the merits, then denied Real Parties’ anti‑SLAPP motion as moot and invoked the public‑interest exemption (§425.17(b)), and denied Real Parties’ motion for fees under Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the anti‑SLAPP motion was not moot, the §425.17(b) exemption did not apply (because §425.17(d)(2) covers political works), the anti‑SLAPP motion should have been granted, and remanded for anti‑SLAPP attorney fees; it also reversed the §1021.5 denial and remanded for further consideration of remaining elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandlin) | Defendant's Argument (Real Parties) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of anti‑SLAPP denial | Order denying anti‑SLAPP under §425.17(b) is not appealable immediately | The anti‑SLAPP denial is appealable as postjudgment or equivalent denial | Order was appealable: denial-as-moot is appealable and the court’s prior denial of the writ constituted a final judgment, so appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Mootness of anti‑SLAPP motion / entitlement to fees | Trial court’s denial of the writ disposed of the case and mooted anti‑SLAPP motion | Anti‑SLAPP motion and fee request remain actionable even after dismissal of underlying writ; court must decide fees on the SLAPP motion | Trial court erred: denial of petition did not moot the anti‑SLAPP motion or foreclose an award of anti‑SLAPP fees; motion should have been decided on merits |
| Applicability of §425.17(b) public‑interest exemption | Petition was brought solely in the public interest and met §425.17(b) criteria | Candidate statements are political speech; §425.17(d)(2) expressly excludes political/press works from the exemption | §425.17(b) exemption inapplicable—political candidate statements fall within §425.17(d)(2) exception, so anti‑SLAPP protections apply |
| Whether petition arises from protected activity and plaintiff’s probability of prevailing (two‑step) | Candidate statements are not protected or were false/misleading so plaintiff can show likelihood of success | Statements were political speech contributing to public debate and thus protected; plaintiff lacked a present probability of prevailing after the trial court already denied the writ | Real Parties met step one: statements are protected political speech. Step two: plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing because the trial court already denied his writ on the merits and he did not appeal that ruling; anti‑SLAPP should have been granted |
| Entitlement to fees under §1021.5 (private attorney general) | Real Parties’ defense did not enforce an important public right or confer significant public benefit | Defending the right to communicate political views in the voter pamphlet enforces public speech/receipt rights and benefits the electorate | Trial court abused discretion: Real Parties were the successful party, their defense enforced important public rights (candidate speech and voters’ right to information) and conferred a significant benefit; remanded to evaluate necessity/financial burden and fee reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (Cal. 2019) (defines when speech "contributes to the public debate" for §425.16 analysis)
- Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, 45 Cal.4th 309 (Cal. 2008) (§425.17(b) requires action be brought solely in the public interest)
- Major v. Silna, 134 Cal.App.4th 1485 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (§425.17(d)(2) excludes political writings from public‑interest exemption)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (de novo review standard and evidentiary approach on anti‑SLAPP motions)
- Moraga‑Orinda Fire Prot. Dist. v. Weir, 115 Cal.App.4th 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (resolution of underlying action does not moot anti‑SLAPP fee request)
- Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (Cal. 2010) (sets three‑element §1021.5 test for public‑interest fee awards)
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004) (explains private attorney general doctrine underpinning §1021.5)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (purpose of anti‑SLAPP fee‑shifting to discourage meritless suits)
- Hammond v. Agran, 99 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (candidate statements supply information that benefits the electorate)
- Public Defenders' Org. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (an order denying a writ petition may constitute a final judgment for appeal purposes)