88 Cal.App.5th 270
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Churchwell White LLP represented Roseburg Forest Products in a 2017 quiet title action asserting 4.07 cfs of water rights in Beaughan Springs.
- Local group Water for Citizens of Weed California (Citizens) circulated flyers and petitioned the watermaster, and enlisted the City to request correction of records asserting the City owned 2.0 cfs.
- Roseburg sued the City and Citizens; Citizens successfully brought an anti‑SLAPP motion in the quiet title case; Roseburg later settled with the City confirming Roseburg’s ownership of the 4.07 cfs.
- Citizens then sued Churchwell for malicious prosecution, alleging Churchwell had no probable cause to name them and sued to chill speech.
- The trial court granted Churchwell’s anti‑SLAPP motion, finding Citizens failed to show a probability of prevailing on malicious prosecution; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Churchwell lacked probable cause to name Citizens in the quiet title action | Citizens: they had no personal or legal interest; their flyers and petitions were protected speech and did not create an adverse claim or cloud on title | Churchwell: Citizens’ public claims, formal watermaster petition, City resolution, and threats of legal action could be treated as an adverse claim affecting marketability, supporting a quiet title suit | Held: Probable cause existed; a reasonable attorney could conclude Citizens’ actions went beyond mere speech and could create an adverse claim within the broad scope of a quiet title action |
| Whether Churchwell acted with malice in bringing the suit | Citizens: Churchwell named them to silence and chill speech | Churchwell: denied malicious motive; acted to protect client’s title | Held: Court did not reach malice because existence of probable cause is dispositive — malicious prosecution fails if probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (standard de novo review and two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (plaintiff’s burden to show probability of prevailing at anti‑SLAPP second step)
- Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 3 Cal.5th 767 (elements of malicious prosecution claim)
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (probable cause standard — claim is without probable cause only if totally and completely without merit)
- Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, 28 Cal.4th 811 (lenient standard to avoid chilling debatable legal claims)
- Castro v. Barry, 79 Cal. 443 (quiet title protects against any adverse claim and is not confined to instruments)
- Bulwer Consolidated Mining Co. v. Standard Consolidated Mining Co., 83 Cal. 589 (quiet title may be brought even if defendant does not personally assert an interest)