In City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments LLC, published March 11, 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3, reversed in part a trial court order granting an anti-SLAPP motion against a property owner's cross-complaint. The City sued the owner in nuisance, alleging acts of prostitution in massage parlors and the maintenance of medical marijuana dispensaries on the property. The court issued preliminary injunctions in the case. The owner cross-complained against the city and staff members for slander and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, alleging that city staff had falsely told prospective tenants and others that the owner had been convicted of prostitution and drug-dealing, and other negative information. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed as to some of the cross-defendants, but reversed as to the city and one employee's statements that the owner had been convicted of crimes.
The appellate court concluded that the statements were not protected by Civil Code section 47's litigation privilege, because the comments did not function to advance the city's nuisance action. With little analysis, the appelalte court declined to find that the statements were protected by Government Code section 821.6's prosecutorial immunity. The court also ruled that Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2's immunity for misrepresentations did not apply to causes of action based on reputational harm, such as slander and intentional inteference based on false statements to third parties. It therefore permitted the owner to proceed with the cross-action against the city and employee.
Comments