Source: http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/california-supreme-court/club-members-for-an-honest-election-v-sierra-club/
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 19:09:27
Document Index: 38311871

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425']

Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club | California Anti-SLAPP Project
Law Offices of Ian B. Kelley, Ian B. Kelley, Conrad Wu; Law Office of Jeff D. Hoffman and Jeff D. Hoffman, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Davis Wright Tremaine, Thomas R. Burke, Rochelle L. Wilcox and Susan E. Seager, for Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of James Wheaton and James R. Wheaton, for Senator Sheila Kuehl as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,FN1 commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute,FN2 provides that a civil cause of action may be dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Section 425.17, subdivision (b) (section 425.17(b)) provides an exception to the anti-SLAPP statute by exempting some actions from dismissal. Here, we hold the exception applies only when the entire action is brought in the public interest. If any part of the complaint seeks relief to directly benefit the plaintiff, by securing relief greater than or different from that sought on behalf of the general public, the section 425.17(b) exception does not apply.
In 1992, the Legislature enacted section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, to provide for the early dismissal of unmeritorious claims filed to interfere with the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. (Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 186.) The Legislature authorized the filing of a special motion to strike such claims, (§ 425.16, subds. (b)(1), (f)), and expressly provided that section 425.16 should “be construed broadly.” (§ 425.16, subd. (a); see Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1119.) Such a motion requires a two-step process. First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the “cause[s] of action … aris[e] from” the defendant’s actions “in furtherance of that [defendant's] right of … free speech … in connection with a public issue.”(§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) If a defendant meets this threshold showing, the plaintiff must establish “a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim[s].”(Ibid.)
In 2003, the Legislature enacted section 425.17 to curb the “disturbing abuse” of the anti-SLAPP statute. (§ 425.17, subd. (a) .) This exception statute covers both public interest lawsuits, under subdivision (b), and “commercial speech,” under subdivision (c). This case involves only the application of subdivision (b), which provides: “Section 425.16 does not apply to any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public if all of the following conditions exist: [¶] (1) The plaintiff does not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff is a member…. [¶] (2) The action, if successful, would enforce an important right affecting the public interest, and would confer a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public or a large class of persons. [¶] (3) Private enforcement is necessary and places a disproportionate financial burden on the plaintiff in relation to the plaintiff’s stake in the matter.”(Italics added.) If a complaint satisfies the provisions of the applicable exception, it may not be attacked under the anti-SLAPP statute.
The Court of Appeal correctly observed that there was “no doubt” that portions of the prayer for relief sought a personal advantage FN7 by advancing plaintiffs’ own interests. Under the Court of Appeal’s own analysis, CMHE sought “relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public.”(§ 425.17(b)(1).) For example, it asked the court to order the Club to install van de Hoek and four other unsuccessful candidates on the Board; publish, at its own expense, “an article by Plaintiffs of equal length to that of the Mayhue editorial;” and disseminate an “Urgent Election Notice” written by plaintiffs along with ballots for the 2005 election. CMHE asked the court to order the Club to “place an introduction written by Plaintiffs in the ballot for the 2005 Board election that is equal in length to the introduction in the 2004 ballot that extolled the virtues of the [Club's] Nominating Committee Candidates.” It also sought to bar directors Aumen, Karpf, O’Connell, Ranchod, and Restrom from running in the Club’s 2005 election. The Court of Appeal concluded that such orders would have assisted the candidacy of van de Hock and other CMHE-sponsored candidates. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that “portions of the prayer … were calculated to give plaintiffs and their allies an advantage in intra-club politics” and there was “no doubt” that plaintiffs sought a “personal advantage” in the Club’s elections.
An examination of section 425.17, subdivision (c), dealing with commercial speech, reveals that the choice of words was intentional. Subdivision (c) provides for the exemption of a “cause of action,” rather than an “action” as a whole, as required under subdivision (b). The Legislature clearly distinguished between an “action” and a “cause of action” in drafting subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 425.17, and treated them differently. (See also § 425.17, subds. (d)(2) & (e).) It expressly provided that the public interest exception only applies if the entire action is brought solely in the public interest. If individualized relief is sought, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of the anti-SLAPP statute in order for the action to proceed. ( Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1067; cf. Northern Cal. Carpenters Regional Council v. Warmington Hercules Associates, (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 296, 300.)
Site last updated November 19, 2013 @ 3:47 pm; This content last updated May 24, 2012 @ 1:50 pm