Takhar v. People ex rel. Feather River Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Feather River Air Quality Management District (the District) sued Takhar for repeated fugitive dust emissions allegedly violating Health & Safety Code §41700 and District Rule 3.16; District sought injunctive relief and civil penalties.
- Takhar answered and filed a cross-complaint alleging (1) a taxpayer waste claim under Code Civ. Proc. §526a and (2) declaratory relief that Rule 3.16(D) (Agricultural Operations exemption) exempted his land‑clearing and made the District’s enforcement a waste of public funds.
- The District moved under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16), arguing its investigation, notice, settlement offer, and civil enforcement were protected petitioning activity and that Takhar could not show a probability of prevailing.
- Takhar argued the public‑interest exemption (Cal. Gov. Code §425.17(b)) applied and that his cross‑complaint did not arise from petitioning activity but sought to prevent unlawful expenditure; he primarily defended the taxpayer‑waste claim on appeal.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion as to the cross‑complaint; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding Takhar did not meet the public‑interest exemption, the cross‑claims arose from protected petitioning conduct, and Takhar failed to show a probability of prevailing on the taxpayer‑waste claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Takhar) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the public‑interest exemption to §425.16 | Cross‑complaint brought on behalf of similarly situated farmers; seeks public declaration and relief for class, imposes disproportionate burden on him | Exemption inapplicable because Takhar seeks individualized relief (abating enforcement against him) and points to no other identified plaintiffs | Exemption does not apply: cross‑complaint seeks relief "against him specifically" and is not "solely in the public interest" |
| Whether cross‑complaint "arises from" protected petitioning activity | Declaratory action challenges Rule 3.16 interpretation, not the District's petitioning; thus not subject to anti‑SLAPP | Investigation, notice, settlement offer, and civil enforcement are protected petitioning conduct; the taxpayer claim and declaratory relief are based on those actions | Cross‑complaint arises from protected petitioning activity (investigation, notice, settlement, and suit), so anti‑SLAPP applies |
| Whether Takhar showed probability of prevailing on taxpayer waste (§526a) | District enforced rule despite Rule 3.16(D) exemption; expenditures to prosecute him were unlawful/wasteful | No showing that enforcement was illegal, sham, or objectively baseless; §526a does not reach discretionary, lawful enforcement absent illegality | Takhar failed to show probability of success; did not prove District unlawfully expended funds or that enforcement was waste under §526a |
| Declaratory relief claim: subject to anti‑SLAPP and merits addressed? | Seeks judicial clarification of Rule 3.16 applying to farmers (public issue) | Declaratory claim directly challenges the District’s enforcement actions and thus arises from protected activity; Takhar did not brief merits on appeal | Declaratory claim arises from protected activity; Takhar forfeited merits showing and thus cannot survive anti‑SLAPP |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (a complaint filed after protected activity does not automatically "arise from" that activity; anti‑SLAPP requires the claim be based on the protected act)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (2006) (filing and prosecution of lawsuits constitute protected petitioning activity under anti‑SLAPP)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and burden allocation explained)
- Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill, 177 Cal.App.4th 1049 (2009) (prelitigation investigation and related enforcement actions can be within the protected "breathing space" of petitioning activity unless objectively baseless or a sham)
- CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore, 159 Cal.App.4th 262 (2008) (declaratory challenge to a notice of violation arose from the protected issuance of that notice)
- Chiatello v. City & County of San Francisco, 189 Cal.App.4th 472 (2010) (§526a requires more than disagreement with discretionary government spending; waste is an unlawful, useless, or purposeless expenditure)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) (procedural guidance for evaluating anti‑SLAPP evidence: accept plaintiff's favorable evidence and consider defendant's only to test legal sufficiency)
- Sheley v. Harrop, 9 Cal.App.5th 1147 (2017) (litigation filings and related conduct are protected by the right to petition)