33 Cal. App. 5th 1039
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Seller Donna Sue Workman listed a Bel Air house (held in trusts) marketed for sweeping views; escrow opened after a $3,053,000 contract. Neighbor defendants Colichman and Millbern emailed the seller's agent stating they planned a second‑story addition that would block the views. The buyer withdrew and the property later sold for less.
- Workman sued for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, conspiracy, and unfair business practices, alleging the defendants never intended to build and sought to depress the sale so acquaintances could buy at a discount.
- Defendants filed an anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, arguing their email was protected speech in connection with an issue of public interest (real‑estate marketing and consumer protection) and that the claims lacked merit.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion, finding the dispute was private; defendants appealed. Workman sought attorney fees below under §425.16(c)(1) alleging the anti‑SLAPP motion was frivolous and filed for delay; the trial court denied fees. Workman also moved for appellate sanctions.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the anti‑SLAPP motion, reversed the denial of attorney fees (finding the anti‑SLAPP motion frivolous and filed to delay), and imposed appellate sanctions: $35,985 to Workman and $8,500 to the clerk, jointly and severally against defendants and their counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Workman (Plaintiff) Argument | Colichman & Millbern (Defendants) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti‑SLAPP statute applies (was defendants’ email speech "in connection with a public issue") | The email was a private communication about one house and not a matter of public interest | The email concerned real‑estate marketing/consumer protection, a matter of public interest, so §425.16 applies | Denied. Court held the email was private and not connected to a public issue; anti‑SLAPP threshold not met |
| Whether defendants met the two‑step anti‑SLAPP showing (threshold/prong one) | N/A (plaintiff disputes threshold) | Defendants asserted threshold satisfied because it touched industry‑wide consumer protection | Rejected. Court required focus on the specific communication; abstracting to general consumer‑protection was insufficient |
| Whether the anti‑SLAPP motion was frivolous or filed solely to cause delay (entitling plaintiff to fees under §425.16(c)(1) and §128.5) | Motion was totally without merit and timed/delayed to stall litigation (late filing, mediation canceled, immediate appeal) | Anti‑SLAPP motion and appeal were colorable and aimed at preserving rights; not brought solely to delay | Held for Workman. Motion was frivolous and filed to delay; trial court erred in denying fees; fees mandatory |
| Whether appellate sanctions were warranted for a frivolous appeal or appeal taken for delay | Appeal was frivolous/for delay; seek fees and costs on appeal | Appeal had arguable legal basis (cases on public interest; pending FilmOn review); sanctions not appropriate | Sanctions imposed. Appeal deemed frivolous/for delay; awarded plaintiff appellate fees and additional $8,500 to clerk; sanctions against defendants and counsel jointly and severally |
Key Cases Cited
- Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica Int'l, Inc., 107 Cal.App.4th 595 (2003) (rejects abstracting private real‑estate disputes into public issues; Blackacre hypothetical)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (2003) (communications to a limited audience are private, not matters of public interest)
- Bikkina v. Mahadevan, 241 Cal.App.4th 70 (2015) (private academic dispute about publications not converted into public interest by broader topic)
- Cross v. Cooper, 197 Cal.App.4th 357 (2011) (disclosure of nearby registered sex offender implicated widespread public interest—distinguished from private disputes)
- L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. The Independent Taxi Owners Assn. of Los Angeles, 239 Cal.App.4th 918 (2015) (anti‑SLAPP motion lacking any reasonable basis as to commercial speech is frivolous; fee award mandatory)
- Moore v. Shaw, 116 Cal.App.4th 182 (2004) (anti‑SLAPP motion frivolous where conduct did not constitute protected petition or speech; fees required)
- FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc., 13 Cal.App.5th 707 (2017) (private/confidential reports may implicate public interest depending on content; discussed as distinguishable and as a reason defendants sought stay)
- Varian Med. Sys. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) (appeal from denial of anti‑SLAPP motion stays further proceedings)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework; defendant must show act was in furtherance of free speech or petition in connection with public issue)