Area 51 Prods. v. City of Alameda, No. A144654 (D1d4, on rehearing Feb. 20, 2018)
This opinion takes to heart the key lesson of the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal. 5th 409 (2016): While the anti-SLAPP statute generally does not apply to lawsuits challenging the official decisions of government entities, it can apply to lawsuits attacking the participation of individual government employees in coming to and announcing those decisions.
The case is about the City of Alameda’s decision to stop licensing city property to an event planning company for its events. The court here affirms the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion as to the City’s alleged breaches of its contacts with the Event Planner. But it reverses the denial as to the employees of the city and a city contractor who helped managed the licenses. The allegations against these folks were based on their communicative activities related to the City’s official proceedings, and thus protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(2). And since there was no reason they would be held liable on the city’s contracts, Event Planner also had shown no probability of prevailing against them.
Affirmed
This opinion takes to heart the key lesson of the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal. 5th 409 (2016): While the anti-SLAPP statute generally does not apply to lawsuits challenging the official decisions of government entities, it can apply to lawsuits attacking the participation of individual government employees in coming to and announcing those decisions.
The case is about the City of Alameda’s decision to stop licensing city property to an event planning company for its events. The court here affirms the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion as to the City’s alleged breaches of its contacts with the Event Planner. But it reverses the denial as to the employees of the city and a city contractor who helped managed the licenses. The allegations against these folks were based on their communicative activities related to the City’s official proceedings, and thus protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(2). And since there was no reason they would be held liable on the city’s contracts, Event Planner also had shown no probability of prevailing against them.
Affirmed