Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Steed sought mandamus to vacate a Board disciplinary action; trial court granted anti-SLAPP motion to strike; Steed appeals asserting the minute order proves likelihood of success; the minute order was judicially noticed but its factual findings could not be accepted as true; the Board’s immunity and privileges were argued to defeat Steed’s claims; the court held the minute order showed existence but not truth of its findings; Steed failed to present admissible evidence to overcome privileges/immunities and the trial court properly granted the anti-SLAPP motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the minute order establish likelihood of success on the merits? | Steed; minute order shows flaws in Board proceedings. | Board; minute order only proves existence, not truth of findings. | No; minute order cannot prove merits; insufficient admissible evidence. |
| May the court take judicial notice of the minute order’s existence and its conclusions? | Steed contends judicial notice supports evidence. | Court may notice existence but not truth of factual findings. | Existence notice permitted; truth of findings not established. |
| Do the privileges/immunities defeat Steed’s claims absent evidence of malice or negligence? | Steed claims evidence overcomes no- malice requirements. | Privileges/immunities bar claims without malice or negligent evidence. | Steed failed to overcome qualified immunities; anti-SLAPP stands. |
| Was Steed required to submit admissible evidence opposing the anti-SLAPP motion? | Steed lacked other evidence, relied on minute order. | Yes; must provide competent admissible facts. | Steed did not provide admissible evidence; burden unmet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework; broad construction of §425.16)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (probability of prevailing requires admissible evidence)
- Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th 628 (Cal. 1996) (proof burden in anti-SLAPP context; admissible evidence required)
- Sosinsky v. Grant, 6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. App. 1992) (court records may be noticed; not truth of contained facts)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2003) (probable cause analysis and pleadings in related actions)