In Shahbazian v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, published November 22, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal, Div. 7 affirmed a trial court's denial of the defendant city's special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The plaintiffs sued the city over the city's decision to issue permits permitting the plaintiffs' neighbors to modify a common fence. The plaintiffs alleged that the city violated ordinances and selectively enforced others. Before suing, the plaintiffs administratively appealed the permitting decisions up to the city council, which allowed the decisions to stand. The plaintiffs alleged inverse condemnation and selective enforcement, among other claims. The city demurred and moved to strike the complaint, alleging that the causes of action arose out of speech and petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP law. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs' causes of action did not arise out of activity protected under anti-SLAPP.
The appellate court agreed. The plaintiffs sued the city based on the city's underlying acts--the permitting decisions--and not the oral statements or other expressive conduct concerning those acts. The plaintiffs did not sue the city for injuries allegedly caused by any of the speech or communications made during the administrative appeals or votes on the permitting decisions. If anti-SLAPP were construed otherwise, any plaintiff who sued a public entity for any act that involved votes, hearings, or discussions would have to meet the requirements of anti-SLAPP law. That was not the Legislature's intent.
Comments