Issue
The California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District) recently addressed whether a trial court erred in denying a motion to recover attorney fees and costs under the SLAPP statute in a case arising out of a voter information pamphlet challenge. (Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection v. Steven Weir, (2004 Daily Journal, D.A.R. 1130, Cal. App. 1 Dist. January 29, 2004))
Facts
The Moraga Del Rey Homeowners Association (Homeowners) submitted a rebuttal argument for a voter information pamphlet addressing a proposed tax to fund improvements to the fire hydrants in Orinda. The Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District (District) filed a mandamus petition to strike or modify certain statements in the rebuttal. Homeowners challenged the District’s standing and asserted that the District did not file its amended petition in time. Homeowners also moved to strike the District’s petition under the SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied District’s petition finding that the District did not file its amended petition in a timely manner and also lacked standing. Homeowners requested attorney fees and costs under section 425.16. The trial court denied the request finding that, because it did not rule on the merits of District’s mandamus petition, the SLAPP motion was moot. The court also stated that making a fee award “would ‘burden the statutory right to protect the public from untrue statements made in a voter’s pamphlet.'”
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred because “resolution of the underlying action does not moot a fee request under the SLAPP statute.” The Court further found that there is no reason to carve an exception from the SLAPP statute for voter pamphlet challenges. The SLAPP statute applies to cases which arise from “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.” The Court concluded that a voter pamphlet presents “a public forum involving issues of public interest.” It noted that the Legislature did create an exemption for certain enforcement actions, but chose not to create an exemption for voter pamphlet challenges. The Court also found that section 425.16 is consistent with the statutory scheme that governs challenges to statements in voter pamphlets and does not impede challenges that have “a minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.” The Court rejected the District’s arguments that the SLAPP statute “imposes draconian penalties” and that the Legislature intended the SLAPP statute to apply only to tort actions. The Court also noted that the Election Code does not grant standing to governmental entities to file voter pamphlet challenges. The Court sent the matter back to the trial court for a determination of Homeowners fees and costs under section 425.16.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.