40 Cal.App.5th 1058
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Supershuttle converted to a franchise model; drivers were treated as independent contractors.
- EDD audited Supershuttle, concluded drivers were employees; administrative appeal and CUIAB proceedings followed.
- After litigation in Sacramento Superior Court, the court found the drivers were independent contractors.
- DLSE (Labor Commissioner) issued notices scheduling multiple Berman (administrative wage) hearings by drivers asserting wage claims against Supershuttle.
- Supershuttle sued for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a judicial declaration that collateral estoppel precludes DLSE from relitigating driver classification and that DLSE lacks jurisdiction to hold Berman hearings on those claims.
- Trial court denied the Labor defendants’ anti‑SLAPP motion; Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Supershuttle’s suit does not arise from protected petitioning or speech.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Supershuttle’s claims “arise from” writings/statements made in an official proceeding (§425.16(e)(2)) | Supershuttle: claim challenges DLSE’s intended refusal to give collateral estoppel effect — an act, not protected speech | Labor: claims arise from DLSE’s written notices/statements and Berman proceedings | Held: Claims arise from DLSE’s intended administrative action denying collateral estoppel, not from the communications; §425.16(e)(2) not met. |
| Whether the conduct furthers petition/free speech on a public issue (§425.16(e)(4)) | Supershuttle: the Commissioner’s decision on particular drivers’ status is not protected public‑issue petitioning | Labor: drivers’ ability to file claims, Berman hearings, and misclassification are matters of public interest | Held: Defendants identified public issues but failed to show their conduct denied collateral estoppel furthered public petition/speech; §425.16(e)(4) not satisfied. |
| Whether denial of anti‑SLAPP relied on a finding that defendants acted illegally, barring SLAPP protection (§425.18(h)) | Supershuttle: court sought judicial oversight of government action and did not rely on a conclusive illegality finding | Labor: trial court effectively treated DLSE action as illegal and so wrongly denied anti‑SLAPP | Held: Trial court did not conclusively find illegality as a matter of law; appellate court affirms without relying on any such illegality. |
| Whether declaratory relief seeking collateral estoppel is precluded by anti‑SLAPP (practical effect) | Supershuttle: seeks to prevent relitigation of classification and to bar Berman hearings as outside DLSE jurisdiction | Labor: Commissioner must determine employment status in administrative claims and communications are protected | Held: Declaratory claim targets the Commissioner’s intended adjudicative act; Supershuttle may seek pre‑hearing judicial relief and the anti‑SLAPP statute does not bar that suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates, 23 Cal.4th 942 (2000) (explains administrative wage‑claim/Berman hearing procedure and commissioner’s duty to determine employment status)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (1990) (defines collateral estoppel as precluding relitigation of issues decided in prior proceedings)
- Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (filing in response to protected activity is not necessarily a SLAPP; focus on whether claim is based on protected activity)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis: threshold showing and plaintiff’s burden to show probability of prevailing)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (acts of governance mandated by law are not protected petition/speech)
- Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (2016) (public officials’ governance acts are generally not within anti‑SLAPP protection)
- San Ramon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Ret. Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (2004) (judicial oversight of governmental action and limits on treating governance acts as protected)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (2006) (discusses illegality exception to anti‑SLAPP protection)
- Cuadra v. Millan, 17 Cal.4th 855 (1998) (court may direct Labor Commissioner to change claims processing policy for multiple pending claims)