Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483, H017585

• Decision Date: 08 January 1999
• Docket Number: No. H017585,H017585
• Citation: 69 Cal.App.4th 1057,82 Cal.Rptr.2d 10
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,558, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1011, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1253 MONTEREY PLAZA HOTEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOTEL EMPLOYEES & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 483 et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 10

82 Cal.Rptr.2d 10

69 Cal.App.4th 1057, 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,558,

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1011,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1253

MONTEREY PLAZA HOTEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOTEL EMPLOYEES & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 483 et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. H017585.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

Jan. 8, 1999.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 4, 1999.

B. Scott Silverman, Morrison & Foerster, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant Monterey Plaza Hotel.

Michael T. Anderson, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483, et al.

Eugene Miller, Seaside, Jennifer Schwartz, for Defendant and Respondent Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International, AFL-CIO.

MIHARA, J.

Plaintiff The Monterey Plaza Hotel appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483 (HERE), Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International, AFL-CIO, (HERE International), and Maya Holmes, after the trial court granted their special motion to strike plaintiff's defamation complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) ¹ Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in striking its complaint, because it established a prima facie showing to support its claim. We affirm.

Statement of Facts ²

On June 21, 1995, HERE filed unfair labor practice charges with Region 32 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against plaintiff. After an administrative investigation, the regional director found merit in most of the union's charges and issued a complaint on September 29, 1995 on behalf of the general counsel. The complaint alleged plaintiff threatened employees with termination for union activity, threatened to report pro-union employees to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, interrogated employees about union activity, created the impression of surveillance of union activities, and maintained an illegally restrictive policy against employee communications.

HERE had also charged that two housekeeping employees, Rosalia Vasquez and Susana Iglesias, had been fired for supporting it. The regional director dismissed this charge after concluding that Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Iglesias were supervisors who could be lawfully discharged for union activity. HERE then appealed from the regional director's dismissal to the NLRB General Counsel's Office of Appeals.

On February 14, 1996, the General Counsel's Office of Appeals sustained HERE's appeal. The general counsel instructed the regional director to issue an amended complaint which charged plaintiff with illegally firing Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Iglesias. ³ On March 20, 1996, the regional director issued the amended complaint.

On March 28, 1996, KCCN-TV 46 broadcast a news story about the labor dispute. KCCN reporter Maleene Ozuna interviewed several people, including Ms. Holmes, one of the organizers for HERE. Ms. Holmes gave Ms. Ozuna a copy of the amended complaint and informed her that a hearing was scheduled for May 21, 1996.

The transcript of the newscast is as follows: "Teaser: [p] Karina Rusk, News Anchor: Good evening, I'm Karina Rusk. Coming up on Central Coast News, a prestigious Monterey hotel faces escalating allegations and now the National Labor Relations Board is involved. [p] News Piece: [p] Rusk: Good evening. The Monterey Plaza Hotel may be facing charges of illegally firing two housekeeping employees. [p] Ed Bradford, News anchor: A hearing before an administrative law judge is set for May 21st. Maleene Ozuna is now in the newsroom to tell us why many are anxious for the outcome of this. Maleene. [p] Maleene Ozuna, KCCN Reporter: Ed and Karina, Rosalia Vasquez said she worked for the Monterey Plaza hotel for six years as a housekeeper and housekeeper supervisor, but in July 1995 she said she was illegally fired. [p] Rosalia Vasquez (in Spanish and then translated by Ozuna): [p] Ozuna: Rosalia says she and another employee were trying to make the workplace better by holding meetings at employees' homes and discussing their problems. A union official says when management got word of this organizing Rosalia and another employee were illegally fired. [p] Maya Holmes, HERE Local 483 Research Analyst: They were simply exercising their very basic rights to, you know, decide whether or not they wanted to support a union and the Hotel's response was to fire them and the federal government has found that, you know, the firings were illegal. [p] Ozuna: But the Hotel's general manager said Rosalia and the other employees were supervisors, classified as managers, and their actions were improper in accordance with the labor law. [p] John Narigi, General Manager: To date we have been found guilty of nothing. [p] Ozuna: But in an amended complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board dated March 20, 1996, the Hotel has been charged in engaging in unfair labor practices. Reporting live in the newsroom, I am Maleene Ozuna. Ed and Karina, back to you. [p] Bradford: Maleene, what is Rosalia Vasquez asking that the hotel do at this point? [p] Ozuna: Well, she is asking for, of course, back pay, but she wants reinstatement. She says she wants her job back. In the six years that she worked for the Hotel she got seniority and she says since she was illegally fired she deserves to have all that back. [p] Bradford: We shall see. Thank you Maleene."

Ms. Holmes has been employed as a representative and union organizer of HERE since 1994. Beginning in 1995, Ms. Holmes worked on HERE's campaign to organize plaintiff's employees. While working on this campaign, she wrote several letters to plaintiff's potential clients. These letters indicate her understanding of the nature of the investigation by the NLRB.

Following the television broadcast, business associates of John Narigi, plaintiff's general manager, stated: "I hear that you were found guilty of firing employees," and "I saw that you fired some employees illegally." Plaintiff's sales staff also routinely responded to comments and questions regarding plaintiff's alleged wrongful conduct to employees. City officials questioned Mr. Narigi regarding plaintiff's "illegal actions" and the fact that plaintiff had been "found guilty" of firing employees. Plaintiff's customers canceled events and plaintiff claims a loss of potential business of approximately $1,635,339.

On May 21, 1996, plaintiff entered into a consent agreement with the general counsel to settle all items of the complaint against plaintiff except as to Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Iglesias. The general counsel then proceeded to prosecute the complaint before an administrative law judge regarding the terminations of Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Iglesias. On December 17, 1996, the administrative law judge issued a decision in which it held that Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Iglesias were supervisors who could be lawfully discharged for union activity.

On March 27, 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a single cause of action for defamation against Ms. Holmes, HERE, and HERE International. Plaintiff alleged that Ms. Holmes's statement that the federal government had found that the firings were illegal was false and exposed plaintiff to "hatred, contempt, and ridicule." Plaintiff also alleged Ms. Holmes's statement was made with malice.

On June 18, 1997, defendants filed a special motion to strike under section 425.16. The trial court granted the motion and stated: "It is clear that no reasonable person hearing that telecast would have considered that statement in full context as described by the Hotel.... The Court bases this judgment both on the written words and the videotape of the broadcast. It is quite clear that any reasonable person seeing the whole broadcast would have concluded that the federal government has through the General Counsel reversed the decision of the Regional Director, made a determination that the evidence was sufficient to issue a complaint, that the decision to issue a complaint was not a determination of actual guilt, and that a hearing as to the actual responsibilities under the law was scheduled at a later point in time."

Discussion

I. Background

SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits have been defined by the sociologists who invented the term as " 'civil lawsuits ... that are aimed at preventing citizens from exercising their political rights or punishing those who have done so.' [Citation.]" (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446.) "SLAPP suits are brought to obtain an economic advantage over the defendant, not to vindicate a legally cognizable right of plaintiff. [Citation.] Indeed, one of the common characteristics of a SLAPP suit is its lack of merit. [Citation.] But lack of merit is not of concern to the plaintiff because the plaintiff does not expect to succeed in the lawsuit, only to tie up the defendant's resources for a sufficient length of time to accomplish plaintiff's underlying objective. [Citation.] As long as the defendant is forced to devote its time, energy and financial resources to combating the lawsuit its ability to combat the plaintiff in the political arena is substantially diminished. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 816, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446.)

In 1992, the Legislature enacted section 425.16 in response to the problem of SLAPP suits. Section 425.16 provides in relevant part: "(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. [p] (b) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right...