Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/navellier-v-sletten-32261
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 17:46:46
Document Index: 130818592

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 426', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425']

Navellier v. Sletten - 29 Cal.4th 82 S095000 - Thu, 08/29/2002 | California Supreme Court Resources
Home > Opinions > Navellier v. Sletten
Citation 29 Cal.4th 82
Navellier v. Sletten (2002)29 Cal.4th 82 , -- Cal.Rptr.2d --; -- P.3d --
Law Offices of Samuel Kornhauser and Samuel Kornhauser for Plaintiffs and Respondents. [29 Cal.4th 84]
Thereafter, plaintiffs sued Sletten and two other independent trustees in federal district court, asserting claims under the Investment Company Act fn. 3 and additional claims (the federal action). (See McLachlan v. Simon (N.D. Cal. 1999, No. C97-1258 WHO.) The gist of plaintiffs' federal action was that the independent trustees had breached fiduciary duties they owed to the [29 Cal.4th 86] Fund and its shareholders in not renewing NMI's investment advisory contract, in rejecting a certain merger proposal advanced by Navellier, and in failing reasonably to evaluate the consequences these decisions might have on the shareholders. In defending, the independent trustees invoked the business judgment rule.
In pretrial proceedings, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Sletten's counterclaims as failing to state a claim for relief. (Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.) Subsequently, however, plaintiffs were successful in using the Release to obtain dismissal of two of the counterclaims. Relying on the Release, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. In opposing the motion, Sletten argued the Release was unconscionable and that he had been economically "coerced" into signing it. Rejecting [29 Cal.4th 87] these arguments, the court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on Sletten's counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also granted in part and denied in part a defense motion for summary judgment. The case proceeded to trial on plaintiffs' surviving claims (for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets), within which, the court ruled, Sletten's remaining counterclaim (for contribution and equitable indemnity) was "subsumed." The jury returned a defense verdict, and judgment was entered accordingly. Sletten appealed from the summary judgment order on his counterclaims and another interlocutory order respecting certain discovery sanctions; plaintiffs appealed from the final judgment.
Section 425.16 provides, inter alia, that "A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right [29 Cal.4th 88] of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) "As used in this section, 'act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue' includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law . . . ." (Id., subd. (e).)
As is discussed at length in the companion case, Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th 53, the Court of Appeal erred in assuming that whether this action arises from protected activity depends on whether plaintiffs subjectively intended to chill Sletten's speech or petitioning. (See id. at pp. 58-66.) When moving to strike a cause of action under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant that satisfies its initial burden of demonstrating the targeted action is one arising from protected activity faces no additional requirement of proving the plaintiff's subjective intent. (Id. at p. 67.) Nor need a moving defendant demonstrate that the action actually has had a chilling effect on the exercise of such rights. (See Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 74-76.)
Section 425.16 posits instead a two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP. First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) "A defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that the act underlying the plaintiff's cause fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e)" (Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1043). If the court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1); see generally Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 67.)
As we previously have observed, in order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), the plaintiff need only have " 'stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.' " (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1123 (Briggs), quoting Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 412 (Rosenthal).) "Put another way, the plaintiff 'must demonstrate [29 Cal.4th 89] that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.' " (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821, quoting Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 548.)
As is discussed at length in Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th 69, another companion case, the mere fact that an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. (Id. at pp. 76-78.) Moreover, that a cause of action arguably may have been "triggered" by protected activity does not entail it is one arising from such. (Id. at p. 78.) In the anti-SLAPP context, the critical consideration is whether the cause of action is based on the defendant's protected free speech or petitioning activity. (Id. at pp. 76-79; see also Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1114; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1001.)
In support of his special motion to strike, Sletten submitted the declaration of his attorney, Ralph C. Alldredge, and certain documents related to the [29 Cal.4th 90] federal action. In opposing the motion, plaintiffs submitted the declaration of their attorney, Samuel Kornhauser, and various other documents.
Despite the foregoing, plaintiffs strenuously insist that this is "a garden variety breach of contract and fraud claim" not covered by section 425.16. [29 Cal.4th 91] When previously construing the statute, however, we have declined to hold "that section 425.16 does not apply to events that transpire between private individuals" (Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1116) and have explicitly rejected the assertion " 'that the only activities qualifying for statutory protection are those which meet the lofty standard of pertaining to the heart of self-government' " (ibid., quoting Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1046-1047). Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
Plaintiffs' cited cases do not provide a basis for departing from the anti-SLAPP statute's plain language. The decision denying an anti-SLAPP motion in Foothills Townhome Assn. turned not on the form of the action but, rather, on the Court of Appeal's view that the defendant had "failed to meet his burden to show the lawsuit was brought to chill his First Amendment rights." (Foothills Townhome Assn., supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 696.) fn. 7 The court in Ericsson likewise was of the view that the anti-SLAPP statute [29 Cal.4th 92] applies only to actions brought primarily to chill First Amendment rights. fn. 8 Although Ericsson also questioned the applicability of section 425.16 to "breach of contract or fraud actions where the act of the [defendant] relates to the formation or performance of contractual obligations and not . . . to the exercise of the right of free speech" (Ericsson, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1601-1602), that comment cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute. Nothing in the statute itself categorically excludes any particular type of action from its operation, and no court has the " 'power to rewrite the statute so as to make it conform to a presumed intention which is not expressed.' " (California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 633.) For us to adopt such a narrowing construction, moreover, would contravene the Legislature's express command that section 425.16 "shall be construed broadly." (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) fn. 9
The logical flaw in plaintiffs' argument is its false dichotomy between actions that target "the formation or performance of contractual obligations" and those that target "the exercise of the right of free speech." (Ericsson, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1602.) A given action, or cause of action, may indeed target both. As the facts in this lawsuit illustrate, conduct alleged to constitute breach of contract may also come within constitutionally protected speech or petitioning. The anti-SLAPP statute's definitional focus is not the form of the plaintiff's cause of action but, rather, the defendant's activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liability--and whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning. Evidently, "[t]he Legislature recognized that 'all kinds of claims could achieve the objective of a SLAPP [29 Cal.4th 93] suit--to interfere with and burden the defendant's exercise of his or her rights.' " (Beilenson v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 949.) "Considering the purpose of the [anti-SLAPP] provision, expressly stated, the nature or form of the action is not what is critical but rather that it is against a person who has exercised certain rights" (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 652).
Thus, contrary to the protestations of plaintiffs' counsel at oral argument, the anti-SLAPP statute neither constitutes--nor enables courts to effect--any kind of "immunity" for breach of a release or of other types of contracts affecting speech. When a " 'complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited' " (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 820-821), it is not subject to being stricken as a SLAPP. In so providing, we have observed, the Legislature "weighed an appropriate concern for the viability of meritorious [29 Cal.4th 94] claims against the concern 'to encourage participation in matters of public significance' " (Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1122).
Noting the reference in the statute's preamble to lawsuits that chill the "valid exercise" of constitutional speech and petition rights (§ 425.16, subd. (a)), plaintiffs further argue, as does the dissent, that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to this action because any petitioning activity on which it is based was not "valid." We disagree. That the Legislature expressed a concern in the statute's preamble with lawsuits that chill valid exercise of First Amendment rights does not mean that a court may read a separate proof-of-validity requirement into the operative sections of the statute. (Cf. Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 59 [chilling intent]; Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 75 [chilling effect]; Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1118 [public interest].) Rather, any "claimed illegitimacy of the defendant's acts is an issue which the plaintiff must raise and support in the context of the discharge of the plaintiff's [secondary] burden to provide a prima facie showing of the merits of the plaintiff's case." (Paul for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1367.) Plaintiffs' argument "confuses the threshold question of whether the SLAPP statute [potentially] applies with the question whether [an opposing plaintiff] has established a probability of success on the merits." (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 294, 305.)
Plaintiffs' argument also runs contrary to the legislative design. "The Legislature did not intend that in order to invoke the special motion to strike [29 Cal.4th 95] the defendant must first establish her actions are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment as a matter of law. If this were the case then the [secondary] inquiry as to whether the plaintiff has established a probability of success would be superfluous." (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 305; accord, Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1089-1090.) We must, of course, avoid any construction that would create such surplusage. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 658.)
The trial court denied Sletten's anti-SLAPP motion in a minute order stating simply that the motion was denied, issuing no other statement of decision. In affirming, the Court of Appeal opined that "the complaint is not subject to section 425.16" and expressly refrained from reaching the question whether plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing. However, because plaintiffs' action arises from statutorily protected activity, the complaint is potentially subject to section 425.16. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. But because the Court of Appeal did not consider whether plaintiffs have established a probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd. (b)), we shall remand the cause to permit the court to address that question in the first instance. On reconsideration, therefore, the Court of Appeal should consider whether plaintiffs' fraud and contract claims have the minimal merit required to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. [29 Cal.4th 96]
After a conflict between Navellier and Sletten had spilled into court, Sletten traded his right to sue Navellier in exchange for Navellier's return to the Navellier Series Fund. (See Navellier v. Sletten (9th Cir. 2001) 262 F.3d 923, 933 (Navellier).) After Navellier continued to pursue his suit, Sletten [29 Cal.4th 97] filed counterclaims. (See id. at p. 934.) Navellier, in turn, filed claims in state court for fraud and breach of contract.
Sletten filed a special motion pursuant to section 425.16 to strike Navellier's claims, asserting those claims "arose from" Sletten's protected First Amendment activity: i.e., filing his own counterclaims. In fact, neither of Navellier's claims properly falls under the SLAPP law. The breach of contract claim is not a SLAPP because Sletten had exchanged his right to sue through the release for consideration, and thus his petitioning was not a "valid exercise" of that right. (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) The fraud claim is not a SLAPP because, as the parallel companion case of City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002 29 Cal.4th 69 (City of Cotati) explains, the second suit was based not on the first suit, but on the underlying dispute between the parties.
The court found the law did not restrict the plaintiff's suit, ruling the statute was not a license to breach a contract. "Many preexisting legal relationships may properly limit a party's right to petition, including enforceable contracts in which parties waive rights to otherwise legitimate petitioning. A quintessential example of such a waiver is a settlement agreement, in which a party releases legal claims against an adversary that otherwise properly could be prosecuted by petitioning the court. But neither this example nor contractual or fiduciary relationships in general exhaust the conceivable occasions in which a party assumes obligations that in turn limit [29 Cal.4th 98] the party's subsequent free exercise of speech and petitioning rights. Furthermore, we are aware of no case that has immunized alleged breaches of preexisting legal obligations based on constitutional protection for the right to petition . . . ." (Duracraft, supra, 691 N.E.2d at pp. 942-943, fn. omitted, italics added.)
In City of Cotati, we note "the mere fact an action was filed after protected activity [petitioning] took place does not mean it arose from that activity." [29 Cal.4th 99] (City of Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 76-77.) We note the City's response resembled a cross-complaint, which may " 'arise[] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges.' " (Id. at p. 77, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c).) We even credit the concession that the "City's action could not be a SLAPP if City had filed it as a counterclaim" to the initial suit. (City of Cotati, at p. 77, fn. omitted.)
Were we to conclude otherwise, and decline to hold each suit related back to the underlying dispute, then Sletten's own counterclaim to Navellier's suit would be a SLAPP. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recalled, Navellier sued for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, waste, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; Sletten answered by filing counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith. (Navellier, supra, 262 F.3d at pp. 933-934.) The counterclaims stand on the same legal footing as Navellier's state court claims of breach of contract and fraud; either both parties' breach of contract claims relate back to the underlying dispute and the overall "transaction" (in which case neither party's suit is a SLAPP), or neither party's claim relates back, and thus both are SLAPP's. [29 Cal.4th 100]
The majority dismisses any objection to its unrestricted application of section 425.16 by noting a suit does not officially become a SLAPP until the party fails to comply with the "second prong" of that provision. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 89, 93-94.) This ensures that suits possessing "minimal merit" will proceed, and thus, we are told, this construction poses no obstacle to meritorious plaintiffs. (Id. at pp. 13-14.) But although plaintiffs with clearly meritorious claims will indeed prevail--eventually--the second prong's required showing nevertheless imposes costs and burdens for which these plaintiffs will never be made whole. Furthermore, the rule devised by the majority encourages a "race to the courthouse" to enjoy the benefit of favorable procedural rules. Finally, these provisions actually create disincentives for many individuals to bring petitions to seek redress. Although the Legislature enacted section 425.16 to [29 Cal.4th 101] protect petitioning from any "chill," our unrestricted application of the law, which relies on the probability showing to eliminate true SLAPP's, will actually chill petitioning activity that is constitutionally protected.
Similarly, Navellier was harmed by his delay. If he had filed first, he would not have needed to make an affirmative showing of his case without benefit of discovery. Furthermore, he could have collected costs and fees from Sletten for the latter's filing of a claim that both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deemed fit for summary judgment, and thus one " ' "any reasonable attorney would agree . . . [was] [29 Cal.4th 102] totally and completely without merit." ' " (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 (Wilson), quoting Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 885.) The disparate standards applied to parties based on when they arrive at the courthouse make a mockery of the legitimate statutory purpose of protecting litigants from coercive practices.
This result will reduce petitioning and thus contradict the law's purpose. As the United States Supreme Court has observed, "In a representative democracy such as this . . . [the] government act[s] on behalf of the people and, to a very large extent, the whole concept of representation depends upon the ability of the people to make their wishes known . . . ." (Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors (1961) 365 U.S. 127, 137.) For this reason, the Legislature found and declared "that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance." (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) We have thus broadly protected the right. Although frivolous actions are subject to sanction, " '[A]ny definition [of frivolous] must be read so as to avoid a serious chilling effect on the assertion of litigants' rights . . . . Counsel and their clients have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win . . . . [A claim] that is simply without merit is not by definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions. Counsel should not be deterred from filing such [claims] out of a fear of reprisals.' " (California Teachers Assn. v. State of California (1999) 20 Cal.4th 327, 340, quoting In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) In Wilson, we recognized that the potential imposition of tort liability for malicious prosecution would "unduly burden[]" legitimate nonfrivolous petitioning. (Wilson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p.820.) These burdens chill legitimate litigants.
This chill will now fall upon plaintiffs who have a novel, untested claim that is not obviously devoid of merit but for which there is not yet any supporting legal authority. The proper functioning of our legal system may depend on the bringing of such suits, which courts may reject if they indeed lack merit. But now that parties may be subject to the additional burden of their opponents' fees and costs, they will hesitate to do so. [29 Cal.4th 103]
Distinguishing SLAPP's from legitimate petitioning is challenging but essential. Our proper solicitude for one party's right to petition cannot come [29 Cal.4th 104] at the expense of the other party's parallel right. "[T]he right to seek judicial relief for redress of grievances [is] too fundamental in character to permit petitioning activity to be turned against the petitioning party in the absence of a showing that the petitioning activity had lost its constitutionally privileged status. . . ." (Protect Our Mountain v. District Court (Colo. 1984) 677 P.2d 1361, 1367.) fn. 6 For this reason, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire invalidated that state's law for unduly restricting the rights of the alleged SLAPPer: "A solution cannot strengthen the constitutional rights of one group of citizens by infringing upon the rights of another group." (Opinion of the Justices (N.H. 1994) 641 A.2d 1012, 1015.)
­FN 1. The acronym SLAPP was coined by professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. (See generally Canan & Pring, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (1988) 35 Soc. Probs. 506.)
­FN 2. This case has two companions. (See Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53 (Equilon); City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cotati).) We granted review in this trio of cases in order to maximize the clarity and guidance respecting application of the anti-SLAPP statute the full group of decisions may provide to bench and bar.
­FN 3. Title 15 United States Code section 80a-35 et seq.
­FN 4. The Release provides, in part: "In consideration of the covenants, promises and agreements contained herein, [Sletten and the other trustees] (collectively the 'Trustees'), on behalf of themselves, their predecessors, successors and related entities, hereby fully release and discharge [Navellier], [NMI] and their predecessors, successors and related entities, as well as their attorneys, agents, servants, employees, representatives and assigns, from all rights, claims and causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, in law or at equity, which the Trustees have or may have against them except for any claim for contribution or indemnity in the event any third party asserts claims and recovers against the Trustees. [¶] By the release of claims, the Trustees do not admit that any claim released was or is without merit." The Release also contains a section which reads in part: "This Agreement shall act as a release of all claims released above, whether such claims are known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, and the parties waive the benefit of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code [preserving from general release material claims unknown to creditor at time of execution]. The parties understand and acknowledge the consequences of such specific waiver of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code . . . ."
­FN 5. Plaintiffs' request that we take judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit's published opinion is denied as unnecessary. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 46, fn. 9.) We also deny plaintiffs' request that we take judicial notice of Sletten's responses to certain interrogatories propounded in a case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the relevance of which to the anti-SLAPP issues presented here is not apparent. (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.)
­FN 6. The dissent confusedly argues that Navellier's claim is a SLAPP for the same reasons that the claim at issue in the companion case, Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th 69, is not a SLAPP (dis. opn., post, at pp. 98-100), but there is no analogy. To the extent Navellier's fraud claim in this action "arose . . . from the alleged deception that occurred in July 1997, when Sletten signed the release" (id. at p. 99), it is based on a statement or writing made in connection with issues under consideration or review by a judicial body--i.e., the issues under consideration in Navellier's federal action. (See ibid. [noting the release was "designed to forestall further litigation" including counterclaims by Sletten in "litigation pending at the time"]; see also maj. opn., ante, at pp. 89-90.) Such statements and writings are expressly protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) The claim at issue in Cotati, in contrast, arose from a controversy between the parties respecting mobilehome park rent control, not from any statement or writing in connection with judicial proceedings. (See Cotati, supra, at pp. 79-81 [pp. 11-14].)
­FN 7. In thus disposing of an anti-SLAPP motion on the basis of the plaintiff's subjective intent, the Court of Appeal in Foothills Townhome Assn. erred. (Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 58-66.)
­FN 8. The Court of Appeal in Ericsson, like the court in Foothills Townhome Assn., thus erred (Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 58-66), as it did also in implying that the anti-SLAPP statute requires, prior to every dismissal thereunder, a finding that the conduct on which the targeted action is based was " 'in connection with a public issue' " (Ericsson, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1602, italics omitted). We previously have disapproved Ericsson on the latter point. (Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1123, fn. 10.)
­FN 9. Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp. (Mass. 1998) 691 N.E.2d 935, cited by the dissent, is not apposite. As the Duracraft court itself pointed out, the Massachusetts statute at issue in that case "differs from the anti-SLAPP statutes of other jurisdictions" (id. at p. 943, fn. 18) like California's, which in addition to asking what activity by the defendant a suit is based upon, "tests SLAPP suits by determining whether 'the plaintiff has established a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim' " (ibid.). Moreover, there was in Duracraft "a substantial basis other than . . . petitioning activity to support [the plaintiff]'s claims" (id. at p. 943), i.e., a nondisclosure agreement not executed in connection with any litigation (see id. at p. 937). The claims at issue here, in contrast, are based wholly on protected activity. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 90; dis. opn., post, at p. 99.) In any event, Duracraft does not, as the dissent asserts, support plaintiffs' argument that Sletten's having executed the release rendered his subsequent petitioning invalid. (See dis. opn., post, at p. 97.) In fact, the Duracraft court expressly rejected that theory, for reasons similar to those that lead us also to reject it. (See Duracraft, supra, at p. 942, fn. 17; compare maj. opn., post, at pp. 94-95.)
­FN 10. Nor does the anti-SLAPP statute interfere with what presumably is the typical litigant's use for a release that--as plaintiffs allege of the Release in this case--constitutes a contract not to assert claims, i.e., the pleading of the release as a defense to any claims which are, nevertheless, asserted. As noted earlier, plaintiffs successfully pled the instant Release as a defense to all the counterclaims Sletten advanced in the federal action except for his counterclaim for contribution and equitable indemnity, which the Release expressly preserved.
­FN 11. While the parties addressed the issue in their briefs in the Court of Appeal and to us, neither the petition for review nor the answer to the petition requested that we address the minimal merit prong of the statutory SLAPP definition.
­FN 1. Massachusetts law covers litigation based on protected activity, a phrase that is functionally equivalent to arising from. (See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1114.) Like our opinion in City of Cotati, the high court of Massachusetts recognized that " 'based on' does not mean 'in response to.' " (Duracraft, supra, 691 N.E.2d at p. 943, fn. 20.)
­FN 2. A " 'transaction' . . . is not confined to a single, isolated act or occurrence [like] a contract [citation], [or] a lease [citation] . . . but may embrace a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated . . . ." (Saunders v. New Capital for Small Business, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 324, 336.)
­FN 3. This analysis conforms to our having drawn "a careful distinction between a cause of action based squarely on a privileged communication, such as an action for defamation, and one based upon an underlying course of conduct evidenced by the communication." (White v. Western Title Ins. Co. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 870, 888.) Thus, where defendants counterclaimed, alleging that plaintiff Microsoft had abused judicial process by applying to freeze defendants' assets, the court relied on White in rejecting Microsoft's claim that the application was privileged, finding the allegedly privileged application was "only being used to prove the abuse of process claim, and is not the claim itself." (Microsoft Corp. v. A-Tech Corp. (C.D. Cal. 1994) 855 F.Supp. 308, 314.)
­FN 4. The provisions for costs are not favorable to the plaintiff (the object of the motion to strike). Although the court shall impose costs and reasonable fees if it deems frivolous the motion to strike, the provisions also reward successful motions with costs and actual fees. (§ 425.16, subd. (c).) The plaintiff, asked to present only a prima facie case, is unlikely to present evidence that appears so overwhelming as to show the motion to strike was frivolous.
­FN 5. Sletten actually benefited by filing the first motion to strike, although the procedural history below was unusual, as it involved litigation in both federal and state court. Although both parties had filed breach of contract claims, Sletten was the first party to characterize his opponent's claim as a SLAPP. The result of Sletten's motion to strike was that procedural standards were tilted to his advantage.
­FN 6. Professor Pring considered this case a "model" for anti-SLAPP legislation. (Pring, SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (1989) 7 Pace Envtl. L.Rev. 3, 18.)
Petition for review after the Court of appeal affirmed an order denying a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Presents the issue whether a defendant seeking the dismissal of an action under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civil Proc., section 425.16) must show that the action was brought with the intent to chill the defendant's exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech or to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Thu, 08/29/2002 29 Cal.4th 82 S095000 Review - Civil Appeal closed; remittitur issued
1 Sletten, Kenneth G. (Defendant and Appellant)
2 Sletten, Kenneth G. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by William M. Quinn
3 Navellier, Louis G. (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by Samuel Kornhauser
155 Jackson St #1807
4 Navellier Management, Inc. (Plaintiff and Respondent)
1663 Mission St., 4th fl, Ste 460
1202 Kettner Blvd. #6200
9 California Newspapers Publishers Association (Amicus curiae)
Aug 29 2002 Opinion: Reversed
Feb 6 2001 Petition for review filed
by counsel for aplt 40n
Feb 13 2001 Received Court of Appeal record
one folder & loose briefs
Feb 26 2001 Answer to petition for review filed
Atty Samuel Kornhauser objecting to letter submitted March 5, 2000, in support of petition for review by Atty Ralph Alldredge, attorney for appellant. (?)
by appellant asking to June 11, 2001 to file opening brief on the merits. ***OK to grant to June 11, 2001. Order being prepared.
to and including June 11, 2001 to file appellant's opening brief on the merits. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
By counsel for applt.
Jun 12 2001 Received document entitled:
Corrected POS re Opening Brief on the Merits
By Atty Kornhauser obo Respondents. Requesting to 8/10/2001 to file answer brief on the merits
Jul 3 2001 Received document entitled:
Supplement to Respondents' Application for Ext of Time to file Opposing Brief
to August 10, 2001, to file respondents' answer brief on the merits
Aug 10 2001 Answer brief on the merits filed
Aug 10 2001 Request for Judicial Notice filed
Aug 29 2001 Request for Judicial Notice filed
Aug 30 2001 Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
by counsel for appellant Kenneth Sletten
by ACLU et al., requesting extension of time to file application to file Amicus Curiae Brief to October 15, 2001. ****granted**** order being prepared.
to American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties and the California Anti- Slapp Project to file the application to file Amicus Curiae brief and brief is extended to and including October 15, 2001. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the amicus brief.
Sep 28 2001 Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief
California Newspapers Publishers Association, et al., (with brief) in support of Petitioner.
Oct 3 2001 Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
to California Newspapers Publishers Association et al.,
Oct 3 2001 Amicus Curiae Brief filed by:
California Newspapers Publishers Association et al., in support of petitioner Kenneth G. Sletten.
copy of extension notice (Jordan Charles Budd)
by counsel for Respondents (Navellier and Navellier Management, Inc,) requesting extension of time to November 5, 2001 to file answer to amicus brief of California Newspapers Publisher Association, et al., ***granted*** order being prepared.
Oct 25 2001 Extension of Time application Granted
Respondent's time to serve and and file the answer to amicus brief of California Newspaper Publishers Association et al., is extended to and including November 5, 2001.
Respondent requesting extension of time to November 13, 2001 to file answer brief to amicus brief of Calif. Newspaper Publishers Assoc.
Nov 6 2001 Mail returned (unable to forward)
(copy of ext. order to J. Budd (ACLU)
Respondents time to serve and file answer to amicus curiae brief of Calif. Newspaper Publishers Assoc. et al., is extended to and including November 13, 2001.
Nov 14 2001 Received:
untimely response to amicus curiae brief by counsel for Respondent
Nov 15 2001 Application for relief from default filed
Nov 19 2001 Response to Amicus Curiae Brief filed with permission by:
Respondents to California Newspaper Publishers Assoc., et al.
May 24 2002 Note: Mail returned (unable to forward)
(Jordan Charles Budd) amicus curiae
Aug 29 2002 Opinion filed: Judgment reversed
and Remanded with instructions that the Court of Appeal reconsider its decision in light of our opinion. OPINION BY: Werdegar, J. --- joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Moreno, JJ. DISSENTING OPINION BY: Brown, J. --- joined by Baxter, Chin, JJ.
Oct 1 2002 Returned record
to CA 1/4
Nov 1 2002 Received:
receipt for remittitur from CA1/4
Samuel Kornhauser (155 Jackson St #1807)
Ralph C. Alldredge (Attorney At Law)
William M. Quinn (Legal Strategies Group)
SCOCAL, Navellier v. Sletten , 29 Cal.4th 82 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/navellier-v-sletten-32261) (last visited Saturday August 15, 2020).