Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin
49 Cal.App.5th 366
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Third Laguna Hills Mutual (HOA) sued homeowners Jeff Joslin and Michael Cohan for CC&R violations and fraudulent conveyance, seeking to void a transfer and recover assessments and fees.
- Joslin answered and filed a 10‑cause cross‑complaint alleging torts (interference with contractual/prospective relations, UCL, wrongful ouster, IIED, nuisance, injunctive relief) claiming the HOA prevented him from occupying or renting the unit.
- The HOA moved to strike the cross‑complaint under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing the claims arose from protected pre‑litigation and litigation communications, including the filing of the HOA’s complaint.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion, finding the HOA failed to show Joslin’s claims arose from protected activity.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Joslin’s causes of action challenged the HOA’s underlying conduct (denial of use/rental and enforcement acts), not the HOA’s protected communications or filing of the complaint; litigation privilege and public‑interest arguments did not alter that result.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joslin’s cross‑complaint "arises from" HOA’s protected petitioning or speech so anti‑SLAPP applies | HOA: claims arise from pre‑litigation demands and the filing of the complaint (protected activity) | Joslin: claims arise from HOA’s wrongful conduct in preventing use/rental, not from communications or filing | Denied — claims arise from underlying conduct, not protected activity, so anti‑SLAPP fails |
| Whether litigation privilege or Civil Code §47(b) defeats the cross‑complaint | HOA: communications tied to litigation are privileged and bar the claims | Joslin: claims attack conduct and deprivations of use, not privileged statements | Rejected at anti‑SLAPP stage — litigation privilege is a separate affirmative defense and does not show the claims arise from protected activity |
| Whether the matter is an issue of public interest under §425.16(e) | HOA: enforcement of CC&Rs affects thousands of members and is a public issue | Joslin: dispute is a private monetary/occupancy dispute about his unit | Rejected — dispute is essentially private, not a public issue for anti‑SLAPP purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (establishes two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and that a claim "arises from" protected activity when the activity forms the basis for liability)
- Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp., 225 Cal.App.4th 722 (claims based on underlying conduct, not board meeting statements, do not arise from protected activity)
- Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, 175 Cal.App.4th 1363 (cross‑complaints are subject to anti‑SLAPP only when they arise from the filing of the complaint itself)
- Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 95 Cal.App.4th 921 (defensive/retaliatory suits ordinarily arise from the underlying dispute, not litigation conduct)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (distinguishes litigation privilege as substantive immunity from the anti‑SLAPP procedural device)