Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880
Cal.2019Background
- Sweetwater Union High School District awarded construction-management contracts after Proposition O; subsequent criminal investigation led to guilty/no-contest pleas by the superintendent, several board members, and contractor representatives alleging gifts and payments to influence awards.
- District sued to void contracts and recover funds, alleging bribery and violations of Government Code § 1090; defendants moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute, § 425.16.
- In opposing the anti‑SLAPP motion, the District submitted plea forms (with factual narratives signed under penalty of perjury) and excerpts of grand jury testimony as evidence of its probability of prevailing.
- Trial court overruled defendants’ evidentiary objections and denied the special motion to strike; the Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflicting appellate authority.
- The Supreme Court considered two linked questions: (1) what forms of evidence may be considered at the anti‑SLAPP second‑step (probability) inquiry, and (2) whether the proffered evidence would be admissible at trial or at least potentially admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form of evidence usable at anti‑SLAPP second step | District: plea narratives and grand jury transcripts, signed/under oath, qualify as declarations/affidavit equivalents and may be considered | Defendants: those materials are hearsay and must satisfy former‑testimony exception to be considered | Court: courts may consider affidavits, declarations, and equivalents (e.g., plea narratives; grand jury transcripts are equivalent if authentic) because they are under oath/penalty of perjury and fit § 425.16(b)(2) framework |
| Hearsay/Former‑testimony requirement | District: oath/penalty of perjury assures reliability; former‑testimony rule not required for pretrial consideration | Defendants: transcripts/statements must meet Evidence Code § 1292 former‑testimony requirements (unavailability and similar motive) | Court: former‑testimony exception is not the correct lens; reliability for anti‑SLAPP use derives from oath/penalty and § 2015.5 equivalence; former‑testimony elements are not required at this stage |
| Admissibility at trial vs. pretrial consideration | District: statements need not be trial‑admissible at hearing so long as it is reasonably possible they can be proved by admissible evidence at trial | Defendants: materials should be disregarded unless shown admissible at trial now | Court: evidence considered only if it is reasonably possible the facts can be established by admissible trial evidence; evidence that is categorically inadmissible or incurably barred cannot be considered |
| Effect of early timing and stay of discovery | District: early anti‑SLAPP timing and discovery stay justify consideration of sworn materials obtained in related proceedings | Defendants: lack of discovery means risk of unfair reliance on untested hearsay | Held: timing/ stay weigh in favor of permitting sworn equivalents; court may permit limited discovery for good cause if needed to cure admissibility defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (explains anti‑SLAPP two‑step and summary‑judgment‑like second step)
- Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp., 33 Cal.4th 601 (discusses declaration under § 2015.5 and requirement of California perjury linkage)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (addresses use of affidavits/declarations in pretrial settings and limits on admitting them at trial)
- Williams v. Saga Enterprises, Inc., 225 Cal.App.3d 142 (allowed use of transcript from related criminal case as equivalent to declaration on summary‑judgment‑type motion)
- Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, 117 Cal.App.4th 1138 (distinguishes evidence that is potentially admissible at trial from evidence that is categorically inadmissible)
- Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2 Cal.5th 536 (requires that evidence in supporting declarations be admissible at trial; incurably inadmissible evidence must be excluded)