Trilogy at Glen Ivy Maintenance Assn. v. Shea Homes CA4/1
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 8
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Shea Homes developed the Trilogy master-planned community and controlled the homeowners association (Association) board until mid-2006.
- In 2001 Shea contracted with AT&T (later Time Warner) to grant a telecommunications easement and to be paid sums under that contract; Association and homeowners were not informed of the contract or payments.
- Years later Association discovered checks under the contract made payable to Shea; Time Warner placed stop-payments pending resolution of entitlement to payments.
- Association sued Shea alleging common counts and (in the first amended complaint) breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, alleging Shea, while controlling the board, breached fiduciary duties by concealing and diverting contract benefits that should have run with the property.
- Shea obtained judgment on the pleadings on the original complaint; plaintiffs amended and Shea moved to strike the FAC under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing plaintiffs’ fiduciary-duty claim “arose from” Shea’s litigation statements (repudiation) and therefore was protected conduct.
- The trial court denied Shea’s anti-SLAPP motion; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the gravamen of the claim was pre-litigation misconduct while Shea controlled the board, not protected litigation activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC "arises from" protected petition/speech under anti-SLAPP | Plaintiffs: claim arises from Shea’s pre-litigation concealment and diversion of contract payments while controlling the board | Shea: claim partly rests on Shea’s litigation-era "repudiation" (statements in this lawsuit), so it arises from protected activity and is subject to anti-SLAPP | Held: No. The gravamen is pre-litigation fiduciary breaches; repudiation statements during litigation are incidental and do not trigger anti-SLAPP |
| Whether Navellier controls to make claim subject to anti-SLAPP | Plaintiffs: Navellier inapplicable because here misconduct predates litigation | Shea: Navellier shows repudiation during litigation can make claim arise from protected activity | Held: Navellier is distinguishable; there the obligations and breach arose from litigation activity, unlike this case |
| Whether anti-SLAPP second prong (probable success) need be reached | Plaintiffs: not reached because first prong fails | Shea: shifted burden to plaintiffs to show probable success | Held: Court did not reach second prong because Shea failed the first prong |
| Scope of anti-SLAPP when complaint includes both protected and unprotected acts | Plaintiffs: core claim is unprotected; incidental reference to litigation conduct insufficient | Shea: any allegation of protected conduct can subject whole claim to anti-SLAPP | Held: The court applied gravamen test — incidental/allied litigation statements do not bring the claim within anti-SLAPP |
Key Cases Cited
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (anti-SLAPP two-step framework and purpose)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (state action arose from litigation activity; anti-SLAPP applied)
- Raven's Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., 114 Cal.App.3d 783 (developer fiduciary duties when controlling HOA board)
- Moore v. Shaw, 116 Cal.App.4th 182 (misconduct predating litigation falls outside anti-SLAPP)
- Aguilar v. Goldstein, 207 Cal.App.4th 1152 (allegations that litigation merely evidenced prior misconduct are incidental and do not trigger anti-SLAPP)