Cruz v. City of Culver City

• Decision Date: 15 July 2016
• Docket Number: B265690
• Citation: 2 Cal.App.5th 239,205 Cal.Rptr.3d 736
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Paul CRUZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF CULVER CITY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

2 Cal.App.5th 239

205 Cal.Rptr.3d 736

Paul CRUZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants

v.CITY OF CULVER CITY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B265690

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed July 15, 2016

As Modified August 8, 2016

Herbert L. Greenberg for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Burke, Williams & Sorenson and Thomas B. Brown for Defendants and Respondents.

RUBIN

, J.

Plaintiffs Paula Cruz and four of her neighbors appeal from the order dismissing as an anti-SLAPP action their complaint against the city council (the council) of Culver City and five of its council members for allegedly violating the state's open meeting laws. We reject plaintiffs' contentions that the action is exempt from the anti-SLAPP provisions because it concerned the public interest, and affirm because there is no probability plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Culver City residents Paula Cruz, Ronald Davis, John Heyl, James Province, and Nadine F. Province sued the City of Culver City (the city) for violating the state's open meeting law (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.

(the Brown Act)), alleging that the council violated the Brown Act in two ways: (1) by discussing a change to parking restrictions in their neighborhood even though it was not on the agenda; and (2) by taking action on that issue when the council implicitly decided that the new challenge to those restrictions could proceed as an appeal of an earlier denial by city staff members.

The parking restrictions were imposed in 1982 when residents of Farragut Drive complained that parishioners of nearby Grace Lutheran Church (the church) jammed their street with parked cars during church services.¹ In 2004, the council adopted an ordinance for the establishment of preferential parking zones throughout the city and included the 1982 Farragut Drive Parking restrictions as one such zone.

In 2013, the council adopted regulations governing the establishment and regulation of preferential parking/residential parking permit zones. These regulations delegated to a “Traffic Committee” comprised of city staff members in the traffic engineering department the ability to administer and implement those regulations.²

In April 2014, a lawyer for the church sent a letter to city traffic analyst Gabriel Garcia seeking information about the application process for a change to the existing Farragut Drive Parking restrictions pursuant to the 2013 parking regulations. Garcia wrote back one month later that the city engineer was unable to act on such a request because the 2013 regulations did not provide a means by which non-residents could seek modification of the conditions imposed in a residential parking permit zone.

On August 1, 2014, the church sent a letter to council member Andrew Weissman complaining about Garcia's response and asking to address the council about the “onerous parking restrictions” on Farragut Drive.

At the council's August 11, 2014 meeting, Weissman mentioned the church's letter during the portion of the meeting set aside for the receipt and filing of correspondence from the public. Following a six-minute discussion with then-Mayor Meghan Sahli–Wells and Public Works Director and City Engineer Charles D. Herbertson, the church's request to review the Farragut Drive Parking restrictions was placed on the agenda for the next council meeting on September 8, 2014.³

In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief that the city and its five council members had violated the Brown Act by discussing the church's letter and by acting upon it by placing it on the agenda for the next meeting, even though the 2013 parking regulations did not provide for such action.⁴

The city brought an anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16

), seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' action because the city's alleged misconduct arose from First Amendment activity and because plaintiffs could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits. The city contended that it had done nothing more than have preliminary discussions with staff members concerning the church's letter in order to have the matter placed on a future agenda, as expressly permitted by the Brown Act.

Plaintiffs contended their action was exempt from the anti-SLAPP provisions because it concerned a matter affecting the public interest. They also contended that the council's discussions and actions were so substantive that they fell outside the statutory exceptions. The trial court agreed with the city, granted the anti-SLAPP motion, and dismissed the complaint.

DISCUSSION

1. The Law Governing Anti-SLAPP Motions

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16

was enacted to address a sharp rise in the number of “[l]awsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (§ 425.16, subd. (a).)⁵ The statute provides that a “cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the 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.” (Id ., subd. (b)(1).)

The trial court undertakes a two-step process when considering a defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. First, the trial court determines whether the defendant has shown the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity. The trial court reviews the pleadings, declarations, and other supporting documents to determine what conduct is actually being challenged, not whether that conduct is actionable. The defendant does not have to show the challenged conduct is protected as a matter of law; only a prima facie showing is required. (People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exchange v. Anapol (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 809, 822, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 224

.) If the defendant shows the challenged conduct was taken in furtherance of his First Amendment rights of free speech, petition, and to seek redress of grievances, the trial court must then determine whether the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing on the claim. (People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exchange, at p. 822, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 224

)

We review the trial court's ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion independently, engaging in the same two-step process. (Cabral v. Martins (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 471, 478, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 394

.) We do not weigh credibility or the weight of the evidence. Instead, we accept as true the evidence favorable to the plaintiff and evaluate the defendant's evidence only to determine if it has defeated plaintiff's evidence as a matter of law. (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 269, fn. 3, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638, 139 P.3d 30.)

The anti-SLAPP provisions do not apply to certain public interest lawsuits. Section 425.17, subdivision (b) provides: “Section 425.16

does not apply to any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public if all of the following conditions exist: [¶] (1) The plaintiff does not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff is a member. A claim for attorney's fees, costs, or penalties does not constitute greater relief for purposes of this subdivision. [¶] (2) The action, if successful, would enforce an important right affecting the public interest, and would confer a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public or a large class of persons. [¶] (3) Private enforcement is necessary and places a disproportionate financial burden on the plaintiff in relation to plaintiff's stake in the matter.”

2. The Brown Act

The Brown Act requires that most meetings of a local agency's legislative body be open to the public for attendance by all. (Gov. Code, § 54953, subd. (a)

.) Among its provisions, the Brown Act requires that an agenda be posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting and forbids action on any items not on that agenda. (§ 54954.2, subd. (a)(1).) “The [Brown] Act thus serves to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies. [Citation.]” (Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 868, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 857.) Either the district attorney or any interested person may bring an action for mandamus or injunctive or declaratory relief in order to stop or prevent violations of the Brown Act “or to determine the applicability of this chapter to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body....” (Gov. Code, § 54960, subd. (a).)

There are three exceptions to the Brown Act's agenda requirement. Even if an item is not on the agenda, “members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under [Government Code] Section 54954.3

. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.” (Gov. Code, § 54954.2, subd. (a)(2).)

3. The Council's Discussion Concerning the Church's Letter

What follows is a transcript of the portion of the August 11, 2014 council meeting where the church's letter was discussed:⁶

“MAYOR ...