Reported / Citable
Background
Waterford Property Company manages several partially income-restricted apartment complexes in Orange County, including the Garrison Apartments. The properties are owned by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) — a local governmental entity exempt from property tax — but Waterford exercises day-to-day control and collects millions in fees and bond proceeds.
Orange County Assessor Claude Parrish determined that Waterford held a taxable “possessory interest” in the properties because of its pervasive, exclusive, and durable control. Waterford initially challenged the assessments before the Assessment Appeals Board but then filed suit in superior court seeking a blanket declaration that neither it nor its tenants owed any property tax. The complaint characterized the Assessor’s actions as a personal “vendetta” against middle-income housing, citing his public statements, op-eds, lobbying of other county assessors, and advocacy for legislative reform.
The County moved to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing the declaratory relief claim arose from the Assessor’s protected speech and petitioning. The trial court denied the motion, finding the dispute was simply about the propriety of a tax assessment and did not target protected activity.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. Applying de novo review, the court held that Waterford’s declaratory relief claim arose from the Assessor’s protected activity under prong one of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The court explained that when evaluating a declaratory relief claim, courts must examine what activities give rise to the “actual controversy” — not just the merits of the underlying dispute. Here, nearly every allegation in Waterford’s complaint relied on the Assessor’s protected conduct: his public testimony before the Board of Equalization, his newspaper op-ed, his communications with other county assessors, and his advocacy for legislative reform.
The court rejected Waterford’s argument that anti-SLAPP motions should not apply to challenges against government action. While some prior cases found that particular government conduct was not protected activity, no blanket exemption exists. When a government entity’s free speech and petitioning activities are themselves the basis for liability, the anti-SLAPP statute applies.
Because the trial court never reached prong two — whether Waterford could show a probability of prevailing on the merits — the appellate court remanded for that determination.
Key Takeaways
- A declaratory relief claim can be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. Courts look at whether the defendant’s protected activities created the “actual controversy” giving rise to the claim, not just the merits of the underlying dispute.
- Government officials’ speech and petitioning activities — public testimony, op-eds, lobbying other officials, and advocating for legislation — are protected under the anti-SLAPP statute, even when they involve official duties like tax assessment.
- There is no blanket exemption shielding suits against government action from anti-SLAPP motions. If the complaint targets protected speech or petitioning, the statute applies.
- Tax assessment actions, including issuing tax bills and recording liens, can constitute writings “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by an executive body” under section 425.16(e)(2).
- This opinion was originally filed April 14, 2026, and certified for publication on May 11, 2026, at the request of multiple government entities including the California Assessors’ Association and the California State Association of Counties.
Why It Matters
This decision strengthens the anti-SLAPP shield for government officials who engage in public advocacy around their official duties. Property administrators, developers, and businesses that challenge government officials’ public statements and lobbying efforts should expect those officials to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute — and potentially prevail on the first prong. The case is particularly significant for California’s affordable housing sector, where disputes over possessory interest taxation of JPA-owned properties are increasingly common. Entities managing tax-exempt properties should be aware that framing a tax dispute as a challenge to an assessor’s public advocacy may expose the lawsuit to anti-SLAPP scrutiny.
The certification for publication — requested by multiple county and statewide government organizations — signals the ruling’s broad importance for local government officials facing litigation over their public policy positions.