Lena Williams v. Barbara Short

Case Number: KC066980    Hearing Date: September 30, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Lena Williams v. Barbara Short (KC066980)

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT (CCP § 425.16)

Moving Party: Defendant Barbara Short

Respondent: No timely opposition filed

POS: Moving OK

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was employed with the Bonita Unified School District (“BUSD”) as a bus driver; Defendant was also employed by the BUSD as a dispatcher for the bus drivers; that Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of trying to “run Defendant down” with her bus; and that as a result, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave with pay and received a written warning by the BUSD. The Complaint, filed on 5/20/14, asserts causes of action for:

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
3. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
4. Negligent Interference with Business Relationships
5. Tortious Interference with Contract

The Case Management Conference is set for 10/20/14.

Defendant Barbara Short moves the court for an order striking Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to CCP § 415.16 on the grounds that the Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged, seeks to punish Defendant for the exercise of her constitutionally protected right to petition for the redress of grievances.

Defendant contends that complaints to the police, and to public entity employers such as BUSD, alleging wrongdoing constitutes a petition for redress of grievances under the anti-SLAPP statute. Further, Defendant contends that all comments made by her initiating such a public entity investigation are entitled to the litigation privilege of CC § 47. As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint constitutes a SLAPP and, further, Plaintiff cannot show a reasonable probability of prevailing on the Complaint.

In ruling on a defendant’s special motion to strike, the court uses a “summary-judgment-like procedure at an early stage of the litigation.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192.) This is a two-step process. First, the defendant must show that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken “in furtherance of the [defendant]’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” (CCP §425.16(b)(1).) Second, if the defendant carries that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (CCP §425.16(b)(3).) The defendant has the burden on the first issue and the plaintiff on the second. (Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928.)

PROTECTED ACTIVITY

The anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action “arising from any act . . . in furtherance of [a] person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” (CCP § 425.16(b)(1) (brackets added).)

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was employed with the Bonita Unified School District (“BUSD”) as a bus driver; Defendant was also employed by the BUSD as a dispatcher for the bus drivers; that Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of trying to “run Defendant down” with her bus; and that as a result, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and received a written warning by the BUSD. (Complaint ¶¶ 5-24.) Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (4) Negligent Interference with Business Relationships; and (5) Tortious Interference with Contract.

Defendant cites to Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192 (“Kibler”) to support her contention that her statements is protected under CCP § 425.16. In Kibler, the Supreme Court held that a hospital’s peer review process qualified as an “ ‘official proceeding authorized by law’ ” for the purposes of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2), because the peer review process is required under the Business and Professions Code and is subject to judicial review by administrative mandamus. (Kibler at pp. 198–200.)

Here, investigations into possible discipline against classified employees of a school district are similarly governed by Education Code §§ 45113 and 45116. Further, the school district’s administrative decision can also be reviewed by a Superior Court by way of administrate mandate. (Ellerbroek v. Saddleback Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 348.)

Plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition to the motion. Thus, the court finds that the acts complained of in Plaintiff’s Complained were performed in furtherance of Defendant’s right of petition and constitute protected activity. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim, which she has not done.

The motion to strike the Complaint pursuant to CCP § 425.16 is granted.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *