South Sutter, LLC v. Lj Sutter Partners, L.P
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- South Sutter, LLC held an exclusive option to purchase 2,700 acres of Odysseus Farms’ Industrial Reserve land and a right of first refusal on Odysseus Farms’ Other Property.
- Option Agreement required Odysseus Farms to cooperate on entitlements and not to adversely affect South Sutter’s development efforts.
- Measure M (2004) approved development in the Industrial Reserve, with South Sutter participating in the Plan process and Leal defendants not part of the Measure M Group.
- LJ Sutter Partners acquired an option to purchase the Other Property and Brennan Tract; Leal defendants and Miller defendants later undertook actions affecting those lands.
- South Sutter filed Sutter I (contract/tort claims) in 2007, then dismissed it; subsequently filed Sutter II (declaratory relief and contract claims) omitting tort claims, targeting the Miller and Leal defendants and Anderson West.
- The trial court granted anti-SLAPP motions in Sutter I and II; a related demurrer against Anderson West was sustained; on appeal, the court affirmed the anti-SLAPP dismissal against the Miller defendants in Sutter II, finding the action arose from protected activity and that South Sutter was unlikely to prevail on the merits; Anderson West’s appeal was dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Miller defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in Sutter II was timely. | South Sutter contends timely filing requirement was violated. | Miller defendants argue venue change reset the 60-day period under Rule 3.1326. | Timed properly; new 60-day period began with Sutter County notice of receipt. |
| Whether Sutter II arose from protected activity. | Sutter II is a contract/declaratory relief action, not a protected-right suit. | Sutter II arises from Miller defendants’ speech/petition in entitlement process. | Yes; Sutter II arose from protected activity. |
| Whether direct estoppel bars relitigation of the same issue in Sutter II. | Settlement of Sutter I should not preclude Sutter II. | Sutter I's merits on the anti-SLAPP issue were final and controlling. | Direct estoppel applies; Sutter II barred from relitigating that issue. |
| Whether South Sutter has a likely chance of prevailing on the merits in Sutter II against Miller defendants. | South Sutter should prevail on its declaratory relief regarding exclusive rights. | South Sutter lacks evidence of exclusive rights to the Other Property and entitlement rights. | No; declaratory relief fails; South Sutter unlikely to prevail. |
| Whether Anderson West’s demurrer was appropriately sustained. | South Sutter contends claims can proceed. | Anderson West is not a party to the Option Agreements giving rise to relief. | Moot; Anderson West dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2001) (no amendment after anti-SLAPP finding to avoid estoppel)
- Morin v. Rosenthal, 122 Cal.App.4th 673 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2004) (new 60-day period after remand; venue change treated similarly)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (ant-SLAPP burden; plaintiff must show probability of success)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994) (primary right theory; indivisible right; basis for estoppel)
- Liu v. Moore, 69 Cal.App.4th 745 (Cal. App. 1999) (merits of anti-SLAPP motion required for attorney fees)
- Sabat v. Engelhard Corp., 65 Cal.App.4th 992 (Cal. App. 1998) (direct estoppel framework in multiple actions)
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 142 Cal.App.4th 1538 (Cal. App. 2006) (standards for issue preclusion and final judgments)
- Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2009) (property dispute vs. protected conduct; SLAPP considerations)
- Sabek, Inc. v. Engelhard Corp., 65 Cal.App.4th 992 (Cal. App. 1998) (direct estoppel under anti-SLAPP)