Real Parties Can Seek Anti-SLAPP Relief

Rudisill v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, No. B289179 (D2d2 Jun. 5, 2019)

Real party in interest permit applicants in this administrative mandamus case against the Coastal Commission got sanctioned for filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court thought that a writ of mandate challenging official government actions is per se not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, so the motion was frivolous. But based on the way the writ was plead, Plaintiffs arguably also went after the real parties for the way they applied for their CCC permit. That could at least be the subject of an arguable anti-SLAPP motion, so the motion wasn’t so frivolous as to merit sanctions. And since the real parties didn’t appeal the merits of the motion, the Court doesn’t need to decide more than that.

Reversed.

Building Permit Does Not Include a Dose of Collateral Estoppel

Bowman v. Cal. Coastal Commission, No. B243015 (D2d6 Oct, 23, 2014)

A county imposed a beach access condition on granting a building permit, which the property owner did not challenge through administrative mandamus.  The owner never actually performed the permitted construction. The property owner later applied for a second permit to replace a structure on the property. The application also requested removal of the access condition. The county approved the request.

But the Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation appealed the removal of the condition to the Coastal Commission, which decided that the issue had been settled by the non-appeal of the first permit’s imposition of the condition. The court here holds that although collateral estoppel can arise from a quasi-judicial administrative decision, it would be inequitable to apply the doctrine here. The access easement would not stand up to the Nolan/Dolan takings test. And particularly given that the owner didn’t actually do the work under the first permit, it would be unfair to apply collateral estoppel to the present circumstances.

Reversed.