The Swansboro Sentinel blog is a platform established for the dissemination of information relevant to the residents of the Swansboro Country Property Owners Association (SCPOA). The content provided herein is intended solely for the benefit and consideration of SCPOA members. If you are not a member of the Swansboro Country Property Owners Association, we kindly request that you refrain from accessing or utilizing the information presented on this blog. Any information, opinions, or advice provided within this blog are tailored specifically for the SCPOA community and may not be applicable or suitable for individuals outside of this group. By accessing this blog, you acknowledge and agree that the information contained herein is exclusively intended for SCPOA members, and any use or reliance on this information by non-members is not endorsed or recommended.
The Swansboro Sentinel blog shall not be held liable for any misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or adverse consequences arising from the use of the information provided herein by non-SCPOA members. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content on this blog without prior notice. Your continued use of this blog constitutes your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you are not a member of the Swansboro Country Property Owners Association, we kindly ask that you close this page and refrain from further accessing or utilizing the information provided herein. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Any SCPOA member may post on this site. The only rules are that the commenter be a scopa member and to use common decency, and not use vulgar and socially unacceptable language. If you don’t know what that is don’t post. Note: The statements, opinions and comments expressed herein are those of the Author and do not necessarily reflect those of the management, employees, shareholders and owners. * Some material allowed under Title 17 §107 permits the use of a protected work without the right-holder’s permission if the use is for a purpose “such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.
The material published herein may also be protected by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019).
The Swansboro Sentinel makes no representation that the material herein will be balanced and agreeable to anyone. Those disagreeing with any material published by the Swansboro Sentinel blog may want to review Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). California has a strong anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). To challenge a SLAPP suit in California, defendants must show that they are being sued for “any act . . . 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.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).
California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, 89–90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Under this standard, statements that report or comment on controversial political, economic, and social issues, from the local to the international level, would certainly qualify. Conversely, a California court has held that statements about a person who was not in the public eye did not relate to an issue of public interest. Dyer v. Childress, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
The California anti-SLAPP law allows a defendant to file a motion to strike the complaint, which the court will hear within 30 days unless the docket is overbooked. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f). Discovery activities are placed on hold from the time the motion is filed until the court has ruled on it, although the judge may permit “specified discovery” if the requesting party provides notice of its request to the other side and can show good cause for it. § 425.16(g).
In ruling on the motion to strike, a California court will first determine whether the defendant established that the lawsuit arose from one of the statutorily defined protected speech or petition activities. Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). If that is the case, the judge will grant the motion unless the plaintiff can show a probability that he will prevail on the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). In making this determination, the court will consider the plaintiff’s complaint, the SLAPP defendant’s motion to strike, and any sworn statements containing facts on which the assertions in those documents are based. § 425.16(b)(2).
If the court grants the motion to strike, it must impose attorney’s fees and costs on the plaintiff, except when the basis for the lawsuit stemmed from California’s public records or open meetings laws. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1)-(2). These laws provide separate provisions for recovering attorney’s fees and costs.
The California anti-SLAPP law also gives a successful defendant who can show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit to harass or silence the speaker the ability to file a so-called “SLAPPback” lawsuit against his or her opponent. § 425.18. Under this remedy, a SLAPP defendant who won a motion to strike may sue the plaintiff who filed the SLAPP suit to recover damages for abuse of the legal process. Conversely, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds that the motion to strike was frivolous or brought solely to delay the proceedings. § 425.16(c)(1). Either party is entitled to immediately appeal the court’s decision on the motion to strike. § 425.16(i).
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019) applied to HOA disputes
A number of cases have applied this language to protect statements made during the course of controversies inside homeowners associations, including those involving board elections, recall campaigns, or management of the association. For example, in Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal. App.4th 468, the plaintiff was the former manager of a homeowners association. There was a split in the community, with part of the community wanting to continue to employ him, and the others wishing to replace him. After his employment ended, he brought a defamation action against several members and some of the board members, and against a private homeowners association club that published a periodic newsletter that published disparaging comments about him. The court granted a motion to strike and threw out the case. What is important for you is the court concluded that the Village Voice, which was a newsletter published by a private group of homeowners, was a “public forum” within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court said this (quoted language is in italics):
“The Village Voice newsletter was also a “public forum” within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). HN6 Under its plain meaning, a public forum is not limited to a physical setting, but also includes other forms of public communication. (See American Heritage Dict. (New College ed. 1981) p. 518.) “The stated purpose of the Village Voice newsletter was to “communicate information of interest and/or concern to the residents.” The newsletter was distributed to the approximately 3,000 Ocean Hills residents and neighboring businesses. Further, although most of the articles and letters were critical of Damon’s management, the Village Voice publisher also solicited contrary opinions, printed at least two letters with different viewpoints, and included articles on many other Association-related topics (such as a series on proposed CC&R amendments).”
The plaintiff argued that the Village Voice newsletter shouldn’t have been considered a “public forum” because it was essentially a mouthpiece for a small group of homeowners who generally would not permit contrary viewpoints to be published in the newsletter. The court rejected this argument:
“Even assuming the record supports this characterization, these facts do not take the publication outside of the anti-SLAPP statutory protection. First, numerous courts have broadly construed section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3)‘s “public forum” requirement to include publications with a single viewpoint. (See Macias v. Hartwell (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 669, 674 [64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 222] [union campaign flyer is a “recognized public forum under the SLAPP statute”]; see also Metabolife Internat., Inc. v. Wornick (S.D.Cal. 1999) 72 F. Supp.2d 1160, 1165 [“a widely disseminated television broadcast . . . is undoubtedly a public forum”]; Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. Progress, supra, 71 Cal. App. 4th at p. 238 [assuming that Mother Jones magazine is a public forum within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute]; Foothills Townhome Assn. v. Christiansen, supra, 65 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 695-696; Tate, California’s Anti-SLAPP Legislation: A Summary of and Commentary on its Operation and Scope (2000) 33 Loyola L.A. L.Rev. 801, 828-832; [***16] see also Averill v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 1170 [50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 62].)
“We agree with this approach. The Village Voice was a public forum in the sense that it was a vehicle for communicating a message about public matters to a large and interested community. All interested parties had full opportunity to read the articles in the newsletter. Although the Village Voice newsletter may not have offered a “balanced” view, the Association’s other newsletter—the Board’s official newsletter—was the place where Association members with differing viewpoints could express their opposing views. It is in this marketplace of ideas that the Village Voice served a very public communicative purpose promoting open discussion—a purpose analogous to [*477] a public forum. Given the mandate that we broadly construe the anti-SLAPP statute, a single publication does not lose its “public forum” character merely because it does not provide a balanced point of view.”
The information on this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. The information here is meant to provide general information to the public
Community Blog 