SLAPP Motion Sought To Strike Allegations That Were Not Connected To An Identified Claim For Relief, But Was Not Frivolous.
In Noguera v. Hull, Case No. A157714 (1st Dist., Div. 1 January 29, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued neighbor defendants for their alleged failure to pay their share of improvement costs for certain improvements to a gate and private road that provided access to their properties. Defendants cross-complained against plaintiff regarding an approved application plaintiff made to the Mendocino County Planning Commission for a boundary line adjustment for certain parcels of his property. Plaintiff filed a general motion to strike portions of the cross-complaint, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 435, along with a SLAPP motion (§ 425.16) – claiming statements in his application to County constituted protected activity. The trial court granted the general motion to strike, but denied the SLAPP motion. Additionally, the trial court denied defendants’ request for fees – concluding the SLAPP motion was not frivolous.
The parties appealed, and the 1/1 DCA affirmed. The trial court properly denied plaintiff’s SLAPP motion. The allegations plaintiff sought to strike were not connected to any identified claim for relief – mere allegations unconnected to an identified claim for relief encompassed in a cause of action – and not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. As to defendants’ appeal of denial of their fees motion, the panel found no abuse of discretion. Although affirming the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s SLAPP motion, the appellate panel could not conclude that plaintiff’s motion, while erroneous, was completely devoid of any merit. Additionally, defendants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff brought the SLAPP motion for the purpose of unnecessary delay. Likewise, the 1/1 DCA denied defendants’ motion for appellate sanctions against plaintiff for bringing a frivolous appeal – finding plaintiff’s appeal did not “cross the line from meritless to frivolous.”
Comments