Sandlin v. McLaughlin

Summary

Bill Sandlin filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the candidate statements submitted by Real Parties in Interest Ed Pope, Jaci Woods, and Frank McGill in their candidacy for positions on the Irvine City Council. Sandlin alleged Real Parties' candidate statements would mislead voters about the current city council's actions and the facts concerning a failed referendum to relocate the site of a planned state veterans cemetery. Real Parties opposed the petition and filed an anti-SLAPP statute, contending their candidate statements were protected political speech and explaining why Petitioner could not prevail on the merits. Sandlin based the petition on a previous judgment that found the ballot arguments against the referendum were false and misleading. Sandlin argued Real Parties' candidate statements were likewise false and misleading. While the anti-SLAPP motion was pending, the court denied Sandlin's writ petition finding it was untimely and failed to show convincing evidence the statements were false. Thereafter, the court denied the anti-SLAPP motion as moot.

Reversed and remanded. "Because a defendant who has been sued in violation of his free speech rights is entitled to an award of attorney fees, the trial court must, upon defendant's motion for a fee award, rule on the merits of the SLAPP motion even if the matter has been dismissed." Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard. If the Legislature had wanted to exclude expedited writ litigation from the anti-SLAPP statute, it would have said so. Moreover, depriving a defendant of the ability to recover attorney fees when facing a meritless SLAPP writ petition would run contrary to the purpose of discouraging SLAPP suits. Sandlin filed the petition in an individual capacity, thus he could not rely on the public interest litigation exemption barring anti-SLAPP motions. Real Parties' candidate statements squarely qualified as protected activity because they contributed to and furthered the ongoing public debate over the use of the site and the location of the veterans cemetery, both of which were matters of public interest. Sandlin could carry the burden of showing probability of prevailing because the court had already denied the writ petition in its entirety, finding it to be without merit.

— Carlo Nardone