In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Powell, published October 11, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2 reversed an award of fees under the Anti-SLAPP statutes and reversed denial of a special motion to strike under Anti-SLAPP. The plaintiff sued a water district and three of its board members, alleging aquifer replenishment charge assessments violated the law. The petition and complaint included causes of action against the board members for writ of mandate, conversion, civil conspiracy, and declaratory relief. All of the defendants demurred, and the individual defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17's special interest exemption. The plaintiff was awarded fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 for an anti-SLAPP motion that was frivolous or solely intended to cause delay.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in applying the public interest exemption, because the plaintiff sued the individual members of an official government body for relief only the government body can provide. The writ of mandate cause of action sought a writ to direct the defendants to stop collecting charges, vacate resolutions imposing the charges, and returning all amounts collected as unlawful charges. The conversion cause of action sought a return of those amounts. All of these are acts only the water district can perform. There is a distinction between action taken by a government body and the expressive conduct of individual representatives. Including the individual defendants was gratuitous. It did not serve the public interest. It could only serve to expose the individuals to potential costs of having to provide for their own defense as well as the threat of personal liability. That risk is enough to have a chilling effect, especially against public officials who often serve for little or no compensation. Without the exemption, the elements of an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike are met: the officials' acts were protected activity, and there was no probability of success on the merits of the claims. The civil conspiracy cause of action failed against the board members because the board members were immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2. The declaratory relief action fails against the individual defendants because it seeks a declaration that does not implicate the individual defendants' rights and duties.