Simpson v. Dolan-Clune CA4/1
D078809
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 20, 2022Background:
- Simpson (trustee) owns two adjacent condo units leased to a dentist who installed vinyl laminate flooring; neighbor/board member Dolan-Clune complained about noise.
- The POA Board (including Dolan-Clune, Rigney, Dawson) sent cease-and-desist and demand letters requiring removal of the flooring despite no CC&R requirement; Simpson and tenant incurred costs and lost benefit of the flooring.
- Simpson also held a permanent exclusive easement to a storage closet; a minor water-heater leak occurred and the POA/other owners later pursued an unlawful detainer against Simpson over the closet, prompting Simpson to file a quiet title action.
- Simpson sued the individual board members for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging misrepresentations, self-dealing, and that defendants’ actions caused the unlawful detainer and quiet title litigation and resulting damages (including attorney fees and emotional distress).
- Defendants moved to strike under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), arguing the complaint arises from protected petitioning (the unlawful detainer/related litigation); the trial court denied the motion, treating the alleged breaches as nonprotected conduct.
- The Court of Appeal reversed in part and remanded: it held the closet/unlawful-detainer allegations arise from protected petitioning and must be evaluated under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP test, but the flooring-related allegations are not protected and the anti-SLAPP motion should be denied as to those claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims arise from protected petitioning activity (anti-SLAPP first prong) | Simpson: defendants did not themselves bring the unlawful detainer; the POA/other owners did, and any litigation is background, not the basis for liability | Defendants: claims rest on the filing and prosecution of the unlawful detainer/quiet title (protected petitioning), so § 425.16 applies | Mixed: allegations that the defendants’ conduct caused the unlawful detainer/quiet title arise from protected activity and must proceed to the second prong |
| Whether the flooring-related allegations are protected or merely incidental/background | Simpson: flooring allegations are independent breaches (self-dealing) and not protected petitioning | Defendants: the whole dispute is a pretext for recovering litigation fees and thus arises from protected activity | Held for Simpson on flooring: flooring claims are private, nonpublic disputes that do not arise from protected activity; anti-SLAPP denied as to those claims |
| Proper unit of analysis under anti-SLAPP when a single cause includes multiple acts | Simpson: many nonprotected acts are pleaded; only protected allegations (if any) should be stricken | Defendants: sought to strike the entire cause as arising from protected acts | Held: courts must analyze each alleged act/set of acts that supply a basis for relief (Bonni/Park); trial court erred by failing to parse protected vs unprotected allegations and must on remand apply the second prong to the protected allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies anti-SLAPP two-step and that allegations merely providing context are not stricken)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (explains how to identify protected activity and match it to claim elements)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (requires parsing each act or set of acts supplying a basis for relief within a cause)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (directs courts to consider what defendant actions supply claim elements)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (filing lawsuits and related communications are petitioning activity protected by anti-SLAPP)
- Takhar v. People ex rel. Feather River AQMD, 27 Cal.App.5th 15 (discusses filing and prosecution of actions as protected petitioning conduct)