Fawaz v. Villas at Corte Bella
Defendant The Villas at Corte Bella Community Association (Villas) and three members of its board of directors appeal from an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16) to strike several causes of action of the complaint of Mark Fawaz (plaintiff), a former community resident. Plaintiff alleges defendants injured him through racially motivated wrongful activities, including harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and various civil rights violations. Section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) provides, A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the persons right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. The statute sets out a two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP. First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity. [Citation.] A defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that the act underlying the plaintiffs cause fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e). (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88 (Navellier).)
Section 425.16, subdivision (e)s four categories of act[s] in furtherance of a persons right of petition or free speech . . . in connection with a public issue are: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
Defendants concede only the latter two categories, section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(3) and (4), potentially apply here. In both of those categories, the defendant must show the acts alleged in plaintiffs complaint were in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest. Although no authority defines the precise boundaries of a public issue (Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 924 (Rivero), in general, a statement or activity implicates public interest when it involves a person . . . in the public eye, it could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants, or it is a topic of widespread, public interest. (Ibid.; see also Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 883, 898 (Wilbanks) [Both categories are limited by the requirement that the statement or conduct be connected with an issue of public interest].)
Where a defendant fails to demonstrate that the act underlying the plaintiffs claim fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e), the court denies the anti-SLAPP motion without moving on to decide whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. (See Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 88.) That is what the court did in this case.
On appeal, Court conduct a de novo review. (Governor Gray Davis Com. v. American Taxpayers Alliance(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 449, 456 (Davis).) Here, we conclude defendants did not demonstrate that the acts giving rise to plaintiffs claims fit within either of the pertinent categories of section 425.16, subdivision (e). Rather, the statements were akin to those styled by the court in Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1127 (Weinberg), as constituting a private campaign, so to speak, to discredit plaintiff in the eyes of a relatively small group of fellow [association members]. Indicative of a long-running vilification effort, defendants statements took aim at plaintiffs alleged country of origin and raised questions about, inter alia, his patriotism, personal finances, property transactions, honesty, and integrity. But under the law discussed more fully, post,they did not involve a person . . . in the public eye, they did not concern a topic that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants, and the subject matter was not a topic of widespread, public interest. (Rivero, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 924.) Even under the required broad construction of the statute ( 425.16, subd. (a); Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 473 (Damon)), plaintiffs complaint does not arise from defendants activities protected within the categories of section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(3) or (e)(4), thus it does not provide the stuff out of which a winning anti-SLAPP motion is made.
Comments on Fawaz v. Villas at Corte Bella