Summary
The California Supreme Court held that a sidewalk protest organized by a housing advocacy group against a real estate company's eviction and foreclosure practices constitutes protected activity under the catchall provision of the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e)(4)). Applying the two-step *FilmOn* test, the court clarified that the first step requires an objective inquiry into whether the challenged conduct, viewed in context, may reasonably be understood to implicate a public issue—even if it also involves a private dispute. The second step asks whether the conduct contributed to public discussion of that issue; here, the protest's context (participants from an advocacy group, location at the CEO's home, and timing after eviction) supported protection. The court rejected a narrow parsing of the protest's content or the movants' personal motivations, adopting a reasonable observer standard and reversing the Court of Appeal's contrary holding.
Topics
Questions Presented
- Whether the sidewalk protest constitutes protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(e)(4).
- Whether courts should defer to anti-SLAPP movants in determining whether a public issue is implicated at FilmOn's first step.
- What is the proper application of the two-step FilmOn test for the catchall provision of the anti-SLAPP statute.
Holdings
- Yes, the protest is protected activity because it may reasonably be understood to implicate public issues of unfair foreclosure and residential displacement, and it contributed to public discussion of those issues.
- FilmOn's first step is satisfied so long as the challenged speech or conduct, considered in light of its context, may reasonably be understood to implicate a public issue, even if it also implicates a private dispute. The inquiry is objective, without deference to the movant's framing or personal motivations.
Key quotations
“FilmOn’s first step is satisfied so long as the challenged speech or conduct, considered in light of its context, may reasonably be understood to implicate a public issue, even if it also implicates a private dispute.” (19)
“We hold that FilmOn’s first step calls for an objective inquiry, without deference to the movant’s framing or personal motivations.” (20)
“the demonstration outside Geiser’s home constituted speech in connection with a public issue under the anti-SLAPP statute’s catchall provision.” (23)
Factual background
Mercedes and Pablo Caamal lost their home to foreclosure after the 2008 financial crisis. Wedgewood, LLC purchased the home at a foreclosure auction and evicted them. The Caamals sought help from the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), an advocacy organization. After failed negotiations, ACCE organized a demonstration on the public sidewalk outside the home of Gregory Geiser, CEO of Wedgewood. About 25-30 demonstrators held signs, sang songs, and chanted 'Greg Geiser, come outside! Greg Geiser, you can’t hide!' The demonstration was peaceful. Geiser filed petitions for civil harassment restraining orders, which he later voluntarily dismissed. Kuhns and Caamals then sought attorneys' fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Procedural history
Geiser filed petitions for civil harassment restraining orders; Kuhns and Caamals moved to strike under anti-SLAPP; Geiser dismissed; fee motion; trial court denied anti-SLAPP fees but awarded fees under §527.6; Court of Appeal affirmed; Supreme Court granted review and reversed.
Remand instructions
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.