Cases

In a dispute over a water-related assessment, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued not only the Coachella Valley Water District but also several members of its board, several consultants to the District, and the District’s general manager, based on their involvement in the approval of the assessment.  In addition to seeking to set aside the assessment, the complaint asserted tort claims against the individual defendants and sought punitive damages.

The individual defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion.  They argued that their conduct constituted protected activity (anti-SLAPP prong one)  and that the claims against them were barred as a matter of law on several grounds (anti-SLAPP prong two).  The trial court denied the motion, finding that Howard Jarvis’s claims were subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17’s public interest exception, which bars anti-SLAPP motions against complaints brought in the public interest.  The trial court also awarded $180,000 in attorney fees against the individual defendants and their trial counsel based on its finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was totally without merit and brought solely for delay.

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that (1) the public interest exception did not apply and (2) the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted.  In essence, the court held that because Howard Jarvis could achieve complete relief—i.e., to set aside the assessment—in a mandamus action against the District alone, the claims against the individual defendants were “gratuitous” and served no public interest.  And because the public interest exception only applies when the entire lawsuit is in the public interest, the presence of these non-public-interest claims against the individuals prevented application of the public interest exception.

To read the Court of Appeal Opinion, click HERE.