A corporate plaintiff filed an action, seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief to invalidate a contract between defendant city and one of plaintiff’s competitors. The city filed a special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted the anti-SLAPP motion and awarded attorney fees to the city. Parties’ Los Angeles litigation lawyer appeal.
Overview
Through competitive bidding, plaintiff was awarded a contract to maintain the city’s bus stops. Four years later, the city terminated the contract as permitted. Without inviting competitive bids, the city entered into a new contract with one of plaintiff’s competitors. The court concluded that, even if plaintiff’s claims involved a public issue, they were not based on any statement, writing, or conduct by the city in furtherance of its right of free speech or its right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Rather, plaintiff’s claims were based on state and municipal laws requiring the city to award certain contracts through competitive bidding. Although the city’s communications could be of evidentiary value in establishing that it violated the law, liability was not based on the communications themselves. The city’s decision to forego the bidding process altogether was not protected activity. That city officials might have deliberated in deciding whether to invite bids in selecting plaintiff’s successor did not mean the city exercised its right of petition or free speech. The substance of the city’s decision was not protected activity.
Outcome
The order and judgment granting the city’s anti-SLAPP motion were reversed, and the order and judgment awarding attorney fees to the city were vacated.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Although a nurse staffing agency and a hospital were joint employers and their contract required the staffing agency to indemnify the hospital under some circumstances, a settlement agreement in a wage and hour class action against the staffing agency did not preclude a subsequent class action against the hospital by the same nurse, alleging the same labor law violations, because the hospital was not a party to the prior litigation and the hospital’s involvement in paying wages was insufficient to establish privity with the staffing agency for purposes of res judicata; [2]-Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that no agency relationship existed between the staffing agency and the hospital because they affirmatively disavowed any agency relationship in their contract and the hospital maintained control over temporary nurses in the performance of the work.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed; writ petition denied.
