27 Cal.App.5th 15
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Feather River Air Quality Management District (the District) investigated complaints that Harmun Takhar’s land‑clearing for an almond orchard generated fugitive dust crossing property lines, received multiple complaints between June–August 2014, issued a notice of violation, and later brought a civil enforcement action seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of Health & Safety Code §41700 and District Rule 3.16.
- Takhar refused a settlement offer, continued clearing, and was named in a People ex rel. enforcement complaint alleging multiple violation dates and statutory theories (strict liability, negligent, knowing, willful emissions, and public nuisance).
- Takhar filed a cross‑complaint asserting a taxpayer waste action under Code Civ. Proc. §526a and a declaratory relief claim, arguing he was exempt from Rule 3.16’s fugitive dust rule under its Agricultural Operations exemption and that District enforcement against him was a waste of taxpayer funds.
- The District moved to strike the cross‑complaint under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16); it argued the cross‑claims arose from protected petitioning activity (investigation, notice, settlement offer, and prosecution) and that Takhar could not show a likelihood of prevailing on a §526a claim.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion at step one, concluding the cross‑claims did not arise from protected petitioning activity. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the cross‑claims arise from protected petitioning conduct and that Takhar failed to show a probability of prevailing; the cross‑complaint must be dismissed and the District awarded fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Takhar) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §425.17 public‑interest exemption | Takhar claimed his suit was brought solely in the public interest on behalf of similarly situated farmers and sought declaratory relief for all | District argued the suit sought individualized relief and did not meet the statutory conditions for the exemption | Court: Exemption inapplicable — Takhar sought individualized relief (abatement of enforcement against him), so §425.17(b) fails at condition 1 |
| Whether the cross‑claims arise from protected petitioning activity under §425.16 | Takhar contended the cross‑complaint sought only declaratory and taxpayer waste relief not arising from petitioning | District argued its investigation, notice of violation, settlement offer, and prosecution are protected petitioning acts and the cross‑claims challenge those acts | Court: The cross‑claims arise from protected petitioning activity (investigation, notice, settlement offer, prosecution); anti‑SLAPP applies |
| Whether Takhar demonstrated a probability of prevailing on a §526a taxpayer waste claim | Takhar argued the District unlawfully enforced Rule 3.16 against agricultural operations (so enforcement was waste) and he paid taxes within the year | District argued Takhar failed to show the District expended funds illegally or that enforcement was objectively baseless; petitioner bears burden to show probability of success | Court: Takhar failed to show a probability of success — he did not establish the District acted unlawfully or that enforcement was waste under §526a |
| Declaratory relief claim surviving anti‑SLAPP | Takhar sought a declaration that Rule 3.16(D) exempts his activities and that District enforcement violated that exemption | District argued declaratory claim challenges its protected enforcement acts and so is subject to anti‑SLAPP; Takhar made no showing of likelihood of success on this claim | Court: Takhar forfeited argument on declaratory claim’s merits; claim arises from protected activity and he failed to meet the requisite showing — it must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (explains anti‑SLAPP two‑step framework and that litigation conduct is protected petitioning activity)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (a suit filed after protected activity does not automatically arise from that activity; explains limits on ‘arising from’ analysis)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies burdens in anti‑SLAPP procedure and application to pleadings)
- Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill, 177 Cal.App.4th 1049 (pre‑litigation investigation and related conduct can be within the protected ‘breathing space’ of petitioning activity)
- CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore, 159 Cal.App.4th 262 (declaratory relief filed in direct response to a Proposition 65 notice arose from protected petitioning activity)
- Chiatello v. City and County of San Francisco, 189 Cal.App.4th 472 (scope of §526a taxpayer waste; waste must be illegal, useless, or provide no public benefit)