Wang v. Peletta

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed judgment against property owners who constructed an unpermitted retaining wall that encroached on a neighboring parcel. The court held that the owners could not establish a prescriptive easement to maintain improvements constituting an abatable public nuisance and upheld denial of an equitable easement. The opinion also addresses evidentiary rulings concerning alleged defamatory statements, in an unpublished portion.

Holdings

1. A motion in limine may be used to dispose of a cause of action or theory of recovery when the court exercises its inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources, although the ruling remains subject to the applicable appellate standard of review.
2. Plaintiffs could not acquire a prescriptive easement to maintain the unpermitted retaining wall and related improvements because they constituted a public nuisance subject to abatement, and no prescriptive right may be acquired to maintain a public nuisance.
3. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying an equitable easement because substantial evidence supported its finding that plaintiffs' encroachment was not innocent.
4. The communications concerning the County's investigation and code-violation proceedings were protected by the absolute official-proceeding privilege of Civil Code section 47, including the republication to a neighbor substantially connected with those proceedings.
5. The statements that plaintiffs were a disgrace to their profession and that UC Berkeley and other institutions should not associate with them were nonactionable opinions rather than defamatory provable assertions of fact.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly used a motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting plaintiffs' prescriptive-easement theory.
2. Whether plaintiffs could acquire a prescriptive easement to maintain unpermitted improvements that constituted a public nuisance subject to abatement.
3. Whether the evidence compelled granting an equitable easement despite the trial court's finding that the encroachment was not innocent.
4. Whether communications to County officials and a neighbor concerning the code violations were protected by Civil Code section 47's official-proceeding privilege.
5. Whether statements describing plaintiffs as a disgrace to their profession and criticizing their association with UC Berkeley were actionable defamation or nonactionable opinion.

Disposition

affirmed