46 Cal.App.5th 1024
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Lunada Bay in Palos Verdes Estates has long been the site of alleged "localism" by the Lunada Bay Boys—locals who allegedly use threats, violence, and property obstruction to keep outsiders off the beach and out of the surf.
- Plaintiffs (two nonlocal surfers and a nonprofit) sued the Bay Boys, alleging a long-running conspiracy resulting in public nuisance, assault, battery, Bane Act and Coastal Act violations, and other torts; plaintiffs relied in part on text-message evidence tying individual defendants to coordinated harassment.
- Defendants Michael Thiel and Charlie Mowat (members of the Bay Boys) were named as conspirators; specific allegations included texts soliciting others to harass nonlocals, participation in building a fortified patio, and coordination that allegedly led to assaults and sexual harassment of plaintiffs.
- Thiel separately met with the City Manager and organized a letter-writing campaign protesting police action; Mowat joined anti-SLAPP motions by joinder and submitted no independent evidence.
- Thiel and Mowat moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the claims arose from protected petitioning/speech; the trial court denied the motions, finding the gravamen was an unlawful conspiracy to commit torts and that the communications were evidence of the conspiracy, not the wrong itself.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the anti-SLAPP motions failed at the first prong because the challenged claims arise from the alleged torts that were the object of the conspiracy, not from protected communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the causes of action arise from protected petitioning or speech | Claims rest on conspiracy to harass/assault and other torts, not on petitioning or letters | Claims arise from protected acts (meeting City Manager, letter-writing, texts) | Denied: claims do not arise from protected activity; they arise from alleged torts committed pursuant to a conspiracy |
| In conspiracy-based tort claims, should courts evaluate the defendants' petitioning speech or the target tortious acts for anti-SLAPP first prong? | Focus on the target torts (harassment, assault, nuisance); communications are evidence only | Focus on the communications (protected activity) that allegedly show participation | Held: courts evaluate the tortious acts that are the object of the conspiracy; preliminary communications are evidence and not automatically protected under anti-SLAPP |
| Whether Mowat’s joinder and claim of planning a counterprotest changes the anti-SLAPP analysis | Joinder insufficient; Mowat failed to identify protected acts and provided no evidence | Mowat claimed texts showed counterprotest planning and joined Thiel’s motion | Denied: joinder and unsupported counterprotest claim fail; texts plausibly solicited harassment and are not protected as the gravamen is unlawful conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (establishes anti-SLAPP two-step and that the gravamen test focuses on whether the protected activity itself is the wrong complained of)
- Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 143 Cal.App.4th 1284 (statements in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit unlawful acts are not protected by anti-SLAPP when the target acts are illegal)
- Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, Inc., 32 Cal.App.5th 458 (when private unlawful acts are the gravamen, incidental protected speech does not control anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Contreras v. Dowling, 5 Cal.App.5th 394 (distinguishable: where only routine legal advice is alleged, anti-SLAPP protection may apply if conspiracy allegations are conclusory)
- AREI II Cases, 216 Cal.App.4th 1004 (conspiracy is a doctrine of vicarious liability rather than an independent tort)
- IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi, 22 Cal.App.5th 630 (elements and proof of civil conspiracy)
- Navarrete v. Meyer, 237 Cal.App.4th 1276 (each conspirator adopts co-conspirators' torts and may be vicariously liable)