Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02992/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02992-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JAMES K. WARD, ESQ. (SBN 117639) 

DANIEL P. JAY, ESQ. (SBN 215860) 

EVANS, WIECKOWSKI & WARD, LLP 

745 University Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 956825 

Tel: (916)923-1600 

Fax: (916)923-1616 

Attorneys for Defendant(s) 

CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY SRVICES DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Eastern District of California 

Sacramento Division 

TAMMY MEFFORD, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 vs. 

CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, a public entity; 

ALAN CLARKE, an individual; DAVID M. 

JOHNSON, an individual and; KENNETH E. 

CATER an individual 

 Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 2:09-CV-02992 JAM-KGM 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ (CAMERON 

PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES 

DISTRICT, DAVID JOHNSON, ALAN 

CLARKE) SPECIAL MOTION TO 

STRIKE (Anti-Slapp) [CCP 425.16] 

Date; June 30, 2010 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Dept.: 6 

Before the Honorable John Mendez

The respective Anti-SLAPP Special Motions to Strike (California Code of Civil 

Procedure § 425.16) by Defendants, Cameron Park Community Services District, David M. 

Johnson and Alan Clarke came on for hearing in Department 6 on June 30, 2010. Michael 

Ahmad appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Tammy Mefford. James K. Ward appeared on behalf of 

Cameron Park Community Services District. Domenic Spinelli appeared on behalf of David M. 

Johnson. Derek Haynes appeared on behalf of Alan Clarke. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties, the Court rules 

as follows: 

The Court grants each Defendant’s Motion to Strike as to Plaintiff’s eighth, ninth, and 

tenth causes of action. 

 The Court notes that Plaintiff did argue, as a preliminary matter, that if the Court was 

inclined to grant these Motions to Strike, that she should be given an opportunity to conduct 

discovery to make a prima facie showing of fact to demonstrate that she will prevail at trial. The 

Court finds that in doing so that Plaintiff has incorrectly read Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, 

Inc., (Central Dist. CA 1999) 57 F.Supp.2d 973, to hold that the Special Motion to Strike must 

be used as a summary judgment motion. While it is true that a Special Motion to Strike may be 

used as a summary judgment motion, this will occur only in those cases where the motion is 

based on a plaintiff’s alleged failure of proof. A Special Motion to Strike must be decided 

pursuant to the standards of FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56. “If a defendant makes a special 

motion to strike based on the alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s complaint, the motion must be 

treated in the same manner as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) except that the attorney’s fee 

provision of Section 425.16(c) applies.” (Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., (Central Dist. 

CA 1999) 57 F.Supp.2d 973, 983.) 

 In this case before this Court, the Defendants’ Motions to Strike are based on the 

deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Defendants all argue that Plaintiff 

alleges no facts to support her theory that Defendants’ speech was not protected. And in this 

case, the Court has treated these three Anti-SLAPP motions as motions to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Eighth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy (False Light)

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 In terms of the eighth cause of action the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged 

facts to meet the elements of this claim. The Defendants have demonstrated that their alleged 

statements were made in a public forum and related to an issue of public concern. 

 Specifically, the Defendants criticized Plaintiff’s work performance and professional 

competence in front of her staff and the public. By doing so, that does not support a cause of 

action for publication of private facts in a false light because the facts in this case, as alleged, 

were an issue of public concern. 

 As the general manager of a community services district, the Plaintiff was the highest 

level management appointee who was directly responsible to the board of directors for the 

implementation of policies established by the board of directors. Public discussion about the 

qualifications of those who hold or wish to hold positions of public trust presents the strongest 

possible case for application of the safeguards afforded by the First Amendment. (Damon v. 

Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 479.) 

 Plaintiff has alleged that the offending statements related to her work at the district. 

Thus, by her own admission, Defendants’ statements are protected because her work as the 

general manager of the district is an issue of public interest. As the general manager of the 

district, Plaintiff was in charge of an entity that provided vital public services. Plaintiff has not 

identified any fact to dispute the importance of her position or how her employment would not 

greatly affect the public interest. 

 There are also no factual allegations regarding an improper disclosure of Plaintiff’s 

employment information in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as it stands now. Although 

Plaintiff contends that some of the Defendants’ statements were made during private 

conversations, she does not address in her opposition the fact that private conversations 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regarding public issues are also protected under the Anti-SLAPP statute. (Averill v. Superior 

Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1175.) 

 Further, although Plaintiff argues that information regarding personal employment 

matters is private, Plaintiff has failed to address the fact that not all information regarding 

employment matters are private and confidential, especially those that relate to employees with 

important public functions. 

 Plaintiff has raised an argument that the Defendants released two pages of a confidential 

investigative report. However, that allegation does not appear anywhere in either the original 

complaint or the First Amended Complaint. This allegation is only found in Plaintiff’s 

declaration, which the Court has considered only for purposes of whether it should grant leave to 

amend. 

 Plaintiff, in short, cannot ignore the deficiencies of the First Amended Complaint and recharacterize her factual allegations through her recently submitted declaration. As such, Plaintiff 

has not demonstrated that she will prevail on her eighth cause of action. For that reason, the 

Defendants’ motions to strike the eighth cause of action are granted. 

Ninth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts)

 The ninth cause of action is for invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts. 

Defendants have argued that, for the same reasons that Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action is 

protected by the First Amendment, so too is Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action and, thus, it should 

be stricken. The Court agrees. 

 To prevail on the ninth cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that there was a public 

disclosure of private facts which would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person 

and which is not of legitimate public concern. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 4 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Again, in this case Plaintiff has admitted in her First Amended Complaint that 

Defendants’ statements were made in a public forum by alleging that on numerous occasions, 

and in a public forum, Defendants spoke openly to the public regarding Plaintiff’s private 

employment affairs. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 87) Plaintiff’s contention that information 

regarding her employment is private is not supported by these allegations. Rather, the alleged 

statements were made in connection to an issue of public interest as required under California 

Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e). 

 Again, as general manager of a governmental entity, Plaintiff’s job performance, 

including her employment affairs and professional reputation, are matters of public concern. 

(Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, see also Aisenson v. 

American Broadcasing Company (1990) 220 Cal.Ap.3d 146.) 

 Plaintiff has not alleged in the First Amended Complaint that Defendants discussed any 

private facts relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s performance as the general manager of the 

district was a public issue because she was charged with implementing public policies as 

determined by the board of directors. 

 In Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District, the court noted that the public has a 

significant interest in the professional competence and conduct of public officials and that debate 

over such issues “lies at the heart of the First Amendment.” (Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified 

School District (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1436-1437.) 

 In this case, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint makes it clear that the board was 

concerned with her management of the district, and the statements complained of dealt with her 

job performance. Thus, the manner in which Plaintiff exercised her discretion as the general 

manager of the district was a matter of public concern and is subject to legitimate public debate. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 5 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As such, Plaintiff cannot maintain her ninth cause of action, and it also is stricken under the 

Anti-SLAPP provisions of Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 

Tenth Cause of Action for Defamation

 The Defendants argue that the tenth cause of action infringes upon their freedom of 

speech pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. Defendants also contend 

that any statement in which Plaintiff bases her defamation claim concerned a matter of public 

interest because it was based on Plaintiff’s performance as general manager of the district. 

 Plaintiff has asserted and alleged that the statements made by Defendants were made with 

malice and in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination and harassment. Plaintiff has 

argued that statements were made to private citizens outside of any official duty and outside of 

any judicial proceeding. Plaintiff also argued that the release of two pages of the confidential 

investigative report was not privileged. These allegations are not contained in the First Amended 

Complaint. 

 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support the tenth cause of action for 

defamation. Under California Civil Code section 45, defamation is the false and unprivileged 

publication which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy or which has the 

tendency to injure him in his occupation. Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that Defendants’ 

statements were made during the discharge of official duties and therefore those statements are 

rendered privileged under California Civil Code section 47. (Paragraphs 49 and 51 of the First 

Amended Complaint.) 

 Moreover, Defendants’ statements are protected by the executive officer privilege of 

California Civil Code section 47(a). That section provides that “a privileged publication or 

broadcast is one made in the proper discharge of an official duty.” Plaintiff has admitted in her 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 6 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint that at all times relevant, Defendants Johnson and Clarke, as CPCSD 

board members, were agents for CPCSD, and each of the acts done by them which are 

complained of herein was done under the color of authority of that public entity. Thus, by that 

allegation and admission, Johnson and Clarke, and therefore the District, are protected by the 

executive privilege as any statements allegedly made by them were in the context of their official 

duties and authority as members of the board of directors of CPCSD. 

 Although Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ statements were “not communicated in 

the course of the board’s business,” (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 93) virtually the same 

contention was analyzed and dismissed in the Morrow case. In that case the plaintiff was a high 

school principal who was terminated after three fights occurred at the school. The 

Superintendent of Schools made statements to a newspaper reporter regarding the school’s need 

for stronger leadership and the inconsistency of the plaintiff’s retirement plans with the needs of 

the school. An Anti-SLAPP motion to strike was filed. The plaintiff argued that the executive 

privilege could not apply to the Superintendent because he was not exercising a policymaking 

function when he made the statements to the newspaper. The Morrow court determined that the 

executive privilege broadly encompasses all discretionary acts essential to the proper exercise of 

an executive function decision. (Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) 149 

Cal.App.4th 1424, 1442, citing Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829.) 

 In the case before this Court, the Defendants made an executive function decision when 

they discussed Plaintiff’s performance and the implications of the performance on whether to 

renew Plaintiff’s contract. Therefore, the executive privilege does apply and Plaintiff cannot 

meet her burden of demonstrating a probability of prevailing on her defamation claim. As such, 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 7 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the tenth cause of action is stricken pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP provisions and the executive 

officer privilege. 

 For those reasons, the motions to strike Plaintiff’s eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of 

action are granted. 

Leave to Amend

 In this case the Court finds that granting leave to amend would be futile and that there are 

no circumstances and no allegations which have been presented to the Court, even through the 

declaration of the Plaintiff, that would give rise to a cause of action and maintain a cause of 

action under these three claims. For those reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for leave 

to amend. 

 THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the Anti-SLAPP Special Motions to Strike 

(California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) against Plaintiff’s 8th cause of action for Invasion 

of Privacy (False Light), 9th cause of action for Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private 

Facts), and 10th cause of action for Defamation filed on behalf of Defendants Cameron Park 

Community Services District, David M. Johnson, and Alan Clarke are hereby granted without 

leave to amend. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 8 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Approved as to form: 

Dated: July 15, 2010 EVANS WIECKOWSKI & WARD, LLP 

 

 By: /s/ James K. Ward

 James K. Ward 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY 

 SERVICES DISTRICT 

Dated: July 15, 2010 Law Offices of Mary-Alice Coleman 

 By: /s/Michael Ahmad

 Michael Ahmad 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 TAMMY MEFFORD 

Dated: July 15, 2010 LAPLANTE SPINELLY & DONALD 

 By: /s/Domenic Spinelli

 Domenic Spinelli 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 DAVID M. JOHNSON 

Dated: July 15, 2010 PORTER SCOTT 

 By: /s/Carl L. Fessenden

 Carl L. Fessenden 

 Derek J. Haynes 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 ALAN CLARKE 

 

 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 9 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b)] 

 [CCP ''1011, 1012, 1012.5, 1013 and 1013a] 

I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or 

interested in the within-entitled case. I am an employee of EVANS, WIECKOWSKI & WARD, 

LLP, and my business address is 745 University Avenue, Sacramento, California 95825. 

On this date, I served the following document: 

__x_ by causing a true copy thereof to be delivered to the party or parties at the address(es) 

 listed below, by and/or through the services of: 

 __x_ Electronic Mail 

Law Office of Mary-Alice Coleman 

Mary-Alice Coleman 

Thomas B. Gill 

1109 Kennedy Place, Suite #2 

Davis, CA 95616 

T: (916)498-9131 

F: (916)304-0880 

MailTo:info@lawofficemac.com

Domenic Spinelli 

Laplante Spinelli & Donald 

815 S Street 2 Fl 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

T: (916)448-7888 

F: (916)448-6888 

MailTo:domenics@lsdnlaw.com

 Anthony Diepenbrock 

 DIEPENBROCK & COTTER 

 1545 River Park Dr., #201 

 Sacramento, CA 95815 

 T: (916)565-6222 

 F: (916)565-6220 

 MailTo:td@diepenbrockcotter.com

William Schmidt 

William Schmidt and Associates 

1419 21st Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814

T: (916)447-2451

F: (916)447-8066

MailTo:wschmidt@wschmidtandassociates.co

m

Carl L. Fessenden, Esq. 

PORTER SCOTT 

350 University Ave., Ste. 200 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

MailTo:cfessenden@porterscott.com

I am familiar with the business practice of EVANS, WIECKOWSKI & WARD, LLP, 

with regard to collection and processing of documents for mailing with the United States Postal 

Service. The documents described above were sealed and placed for collection and mailing on 

the date stated below. Pursuant to said business practices, documents were deposited with the 

United States Postal Service in Sacramento, California, that same day in the ordinary course of 

business. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 10 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE- 11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this 

Declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on March____, 2010. 

_____________________________ 

 Andrea Cervantes 

 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 75 Filed 07/16/10 Page 11 of 11