Reported / Citable
Background
Eagle entities worked with the City of Colton and its housing authority on an affordable senior-housing development secured by financing documents. When the relationship deteriorated, Eagle sued the public entities and an official over statements, financing decisions, and conduct tied to development of the project.
Colton filed an anti-SLAPP motion—California’s special motion to strike claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity. The trial court denied it, and Colton appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed and directed the trial court to grant the motion. Eagle’s causes of action arose from communications and governmental activity concerning approval, financing, and administration of a public housing project, bringing the challenged conduct within anti-SLAPP protection.
Eagle could not show the required probability of success because it failed to prove timely presentation of a claim under the Government Claims Act. An attorney letter and an assertion on information and belief that it reached the clerk were not competent proof of compliant presentation. The court ordered further proceedings to determine Colton’s mandatory anti-SLAPP fee award.
Key Takeaways
- Courts examine the acts supplying each claim, not the plaintiff’s characterization of the overall business dispute.
- Government Claims Act compliance must be supported with admissible evidence at anti-SLAPP’s second step.
- A demand letter is not necessarily a statutory claim, and assumed delivery is not proof of presentation.
- A prevailing anti-SLAPP defendant is entitled to fees, making early compliance analysis especially important.
Why It Matters
Developers and contractors dealing with cities should preserve proof that a statutory claim was received by the correct public entity before suing. Contract-flavored allegations do not avoid anti-SLAPP scrutiny when the asserted injury is based on protected governmental communications.