Vinci Investment Co. v. Browning
Vinci Investment Co., Inc., a car dealership doing business as Honda Santa Ana (Honda), appeals the trial courts order striking its complaint for declaratory relief against two used automobile purchasers, Charles Browning and Bernadette Chapman.
Honda contends its suit against the purchasers amounted to a garden-variety action to determine the parties respective contractual rights and obligations, and whether Honda violated any consumer protection laws, rather than a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) subject to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Honda acknowledges its declaratory judgment action followed on the heels of defendants notice of their intent to sue Honda under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, 1750 et seq.), and Honda concedes such notices are a protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16, which guards against intrusions on the rights of free speech and petition. But as our Supreme Court has observed: [T]he mere fact an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean it arose from that activity. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 66 (Equilon).) Honda points out it did not seek to enjoin or otherwise preclude defendants contemplated CLRA action, which they remained free to pursue. We also observe Honda did not attack defendants CLRA notices or any other speech or petitioning activity by defendants, but instead sought adjudication of its own conduct under the pertinent contracts and laws. Court therefore agree defendants failed to carry their burden to establish Hondas suit ran afoul of the anti-SLAPP law. Accordingly, court reverse.
Comments on Vinci Investment Co. v. Browning