Shahbazian v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B271562

Background

Neighbors (Hessers) built/altered a retaining wall and fence; Shahbazians alleged unpermitted work caused drainage, view, and property-value harms.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ code enforcement and planning divisions investigated; the City issued an "over-the-counter after-the-fact permit" for the already-built portion and a conditional permit (with later administrative revisions) for remaining work; planning commission and city council held public hearings and ultimately approved the permits with modifications.
The City separately investigated the Shahbazians’ unpermitted deck, conditionally approved a permit pending modifications, and (according to the City) did not issue a final permit when modifications were not made.
The Shahbazians sued the City (and the Hessers) alleging negligence (including breach of a mandatory-duty to provide notice and hearing), inverse condemnation, and selective enforcement (including alleged discriminatory motive).
The City filed a special motion to strike under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), asserting the claims "arise from" protected speech/petitioning in official proceedings and arguing the claims lacked merit; the trial court denied the motion and sustained the City’s demurrer with leave to amend; the City appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 425.16 applies to claims challenging a city’s permitting decisions	Shahbazian: claims arise from the City’s violations of ordinances and its failure to provide notice/hearing — not from protected speech or petitioning	City: claims arise from investigations, public hearings, communications, and other official proceedings (protected speech/petitioning)	Held: § 425.16 does not apply — the claims arise from the City’s decisions to grant/deny permits, not from protected speech or petitioning
Whether the complaint’s gravamen is protected communications made in official proceedings	Shahbazian: any communications were incidental; the gravamen is the unlawful permitting decisions and disparate enforcement	City: communications, reports, submissions, and public participation in hearings are the actions giving rise to liability	Held: communications were incidental; liability is premised on the permit decisions themselves, so the "arising from" requirement for anti‑SLAPP is not met
Whether applying anti‑SLAPP here would be consistent with precedent and legislative intent	Shahbazian: applying § 425.16 would chill challenges to government action and is contrary to case law protecting government‑decision challenges	City: relies on cases treating governmental communications as protected and argues permitting disputes involve public issues and official proceedings	Held: Court follows Park and related authority — distinguish individual speech from governmental decisions; applying anti‑SLAPP to government decisions would improperly chill judicial review
Whether the trial court should reach the second prong (probability of prevailing) of anti‑SLAPP analysis	Shahbazian: first prong not met so no need to reach second; merits shown sufficiently in opposition	City: argued merits fail under common law and other theories	Held: Because City failed the first step, court did not reach second step; denial of special motion affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and requirement that defendant show claim "arises from" protected activity)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (government decisions vs. communications: suit challenging decision does not necessarily "arise from" protected speech)
City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (anti‑SLAPP procedure and limits; appealability of anti‑SLAPP rulings)
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, 181 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (claims based on statutory duties of governmental entities are not necessarily based on protected communications)
San Ramon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. v. Contra Costa County Emp. Retirement Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (official votes/decisions are acts of governance and not inherently protected speech for anti‑SLAPP)
Nam v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discrimination/retaliation claims arise from the adverse action, not the communications surrounding it)
City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (Cal. 2016) (elected officials may assert anti‑SLAPP protection for how they voted, but this does not convert suits against the public entity challenging the decision itself)
Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (discussed and limited by Park on scope of protected governmental communications)

Disposition: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the City’s special motion to strike; Shahbazians recover costs on appeal.