Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Not Based On Protected Activities And Determined Frivolous, And Order On Costs Was Not Appealable Under The One Final Judgment Rule.
In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting commercial cannabis-related activities without state license and county permit.
Defendant neighbors unsuccessfully SLAPPed back – with the trial court determining their anti-SLAPP motion to be frivolous and awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs. The trial court also issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant neighbors from conducting unlawful cannabis cultivation and cannabis tourism. Finally, when defendant neighbors sought costs against three plaintiffs who had voluntarily dismissed their claims, the trial court granted dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to strike/tax costs without prejudice to any party bringing a new claim for costs at the conclusion of the litigation.
Defendant neighbors appealed the denial of their anti-SLAPP motion and subsequent award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs, but the 5/5 DCA affirmed. Plaintiffs’ complaint challenged defendant neighbors’ cultivation of cannabis without a permit, which was not a protected activity, and plaintiffs’ incidental references to defendant neighbors’ efforts to obtain a permit and putting up posters about their cannabis development plans did not provide a basis for striking the claim under Code Civ. Proc., section 425.16 – nor did plaintiffs’ subjective intent in filing the complaint, with intent being irrelevant under section 425.16. Additionally, defendant neighbors’ argument that their motion to strike should have been granted because they were not cultivating commercial cannabis was to no avail. The threshold determination was whether plaintiffs’ claims arose out of defendants’ protected activity – with the question being about what is pled, not what is proven.
Finally, the appellate panel dismissed defendant neighbors’ appeal of the trial court’s granting of dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to strike/tax – concluding the order was not appealable under the “one final judgment” rule as it failed to dispose of all claims between the litigants as dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to strike/tax costs was granted “without prejudice to any party brining a new claim for costs at the end of litigation.”