Jerk Neighbors Get Comeuppance on BS SLAPP Motion

Workman v. Colichman, No. B285945 (D2d4 Apr. 2, 2019)

Justice Collins drops the hammer on a really stupid anti-SLAPP motion and appeal. She affirms the denial of the motion, as well as a grant of fees to plaintiff. Then she adds more fees for the appeal.

The fact that a case involves facts where someone talked to someone else does not automatically make it into a SLAPP. Here, Plaintiffs were selling their (evidently fancy) house. Defendants wanted to buy it, but apparently didn’t have the cash. So when Plaintiffs put it on the market, Defendants called Plaintiffs’ agent, explaining that they were about to bump up to a second story as part of a huge construction project. That would be a pain in the ass for any buyer, and also ruin some of their views. Once Plaintiffs knew, they were arguably required to include it in one of those annoying real estate disclosure forms. That succeeded in scaring off a buyer. Defendants were then evidently able to buy the house, through a straw purchaser, for significantly less than the prior buyer’s price. 

That’s clearly not a SLAPP. The statement at issue was neither made in connection with any kind of proceeding nor in a public forum, so the SLAPP question comes down to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(4), which protects other conduct “in furtherance” of speech or petitioning rights. But (e)(4) also requires a connection between the condduct and an issue of public interest. In no world is the fact that neighbors might be doing some construction an issue of public interest. Defendants’ efforts to cast it as such require the kind of abstraction from the specific statements to their more generalized subject matter that courts have repeatedly held is inappropriate in assessing the public interest question under the anti-SLAPP statute. 

Moreover, the circumstances in the trial court gave a strong suggestion that Defendants brought the motion in an effort to delay the case. And that continued on appeal. So the Court of Appeal orders additional sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 907 in the amount of $8,500—the Court’s estimate of the cost of processing a civil appeal—payable to the clerk of court. Plus counsel are ordered to submit a copy of the opinion to the state bar.

Affirmed.