Squires v. City of Eureka CA/2
180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Floyd and Betty Squires (plaintiffs) owned numerous rental properties in Eureka and alleged long‑running code‑enforcement conflicts with the City and several city officials, culminating in a 2010 complaint asserting 10 causes of action (7 common‑law, 3 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
- The trial court granted an initial anti‑SLAPP motion striking the first seven causes of action but allowed discovery on the remaining § 1983 claims (municipal liability, failure to train, supervisor liability).
- After extended discovery, defendants filed a renewed anti‑SLAPP motion supported by declarations from city officials documenting widespread, repeated code violations at many of the Squires’ properties and related enforcement actions.
- Plaintiffs opposed with declarations largely recounting alleged trial testimony from a separate receivership action and with the plaintiffs’ own statements; many trial‑court evidentiary objections to those materials were sustained.
- The trial court found plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing on the § 1983 claims (including a ‘‘class‑of‑one’’ equal‑protection theory and deliberate‑indifference theories for training/supervision) and granted the renewed anti‑SLAPP motion; it later awarded defendants attorney fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims arise from protected petitioning/speech (anti‑SLAPP threshold) | Squires argued claims were unlawful abuses of enforcement, not protected petitioning | City showed claims arose from code‑enforcement and related prosecutions—protected activity | Court: conceded threshold met (claims implicate protected petitioning); proceed to step two |
| Whether plaintiffs showed probability of prevailing on municipal liability (Monell) under § 1983 | Squires: city officials acted with an impermissible motive, deprived plaintiffs of property and rights | City: evidence showed legitimate enforcement of persistent code violations; plaintiffs offered little admissible evidence of constitutional injury | Court: plaintiffs failed to show a constitutional injury or admissible evidence to support Monell claim; anti‑SLAPP granted |
| Whether plaintiffs proved ‘‘class‑of‑one’’ equal‑protection selective‑enforcement (Olech) | Squires: singled out and treated differently; timing of abatement notices shows retaliation | City: plaintiffs weren’t similarly situated to other owners (multiple properties, repeated complaints); enforcement involves discretionary, individualized decisions with rational basis | Court: plaintiffs failed to identify similarly situated comparators and to rebut rational‑basis/ discretionary‑decision doctrines; claim fails |
| Whether plaintiffs established failure‑to‑train and supervisor liability (deliberate indifference) | Squires: widespread unconstitutional conduct shows inadequate training and tacit authorization by supervisors | City: no pattern of constitutional violations shown; enforcement decisions were discretionary and supported by complaints/violations | Court: plaintiffs made no prima facie showing of pattern or deliberate indifference; claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (California Supreme Court) (anti‑SLAPP two‑step procedure and plaintiff’s burden at step two)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. Supreme Court) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a constitutional injury attributable to municipal policy or custom)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. Supreme Court) (no municipal liability absent constitutional injury by an officer)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. Supreme Court) (elements of a “class‑of‑one” equal‑protection claim)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. Supreme Court) (discretionary decisionmaking can preclude class‑of‑one equal‑protection claims)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. Supreme Court) (failure‑to‑train deliberate‑indifference standard requires pattern except in rare obvious cases)
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (California Supreme Court) (anti‑SLAPP purpose and early merits evaluation)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (California Supreme Court) (plaintiff need only show minimal level of legal sufficiency at anti‑SLAPP step two)
- Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal.4th 1 (California Supreme Court) (defendant’s evidence can defeat plaintiff’s attempt to show evidentiary support)
Disposition: Anti‑SLAPP ruling and denial of plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims affirmed; defendants awarded costs and appellate fees; trial‑court attorney‑fee amount left to trial court determination.