City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League

The City of Los Angeles on behalf of two of its employees, Sharon Morris, then interim general manager of the City’s animal services department, and David Diliberto, director of field operations for the *610 department, filed three petitions under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 1 seeking workplace violence protective orders against animal rights activist Pamelyn Ferdin Vlasak (Ferdin) 2 and the Animal Defense League—Los Angeles (ADL-LA) following a raucous nighttime protest at Diliberto’s home. The trial court granted temporary restraining orders against Ferdin and ADL-LA in the two actions initiated on behalf of Diliberto, denied without prejudice a temporary restraining order in the action on behalf of Morris against ADL-LA and set all three matters for a hearing with respect to the City’s request for permanent injunctive relief. In response Ferdin and ADL-LA filed special motions to strike the actions under section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.

The trial court denied the special motions to strike, holding the City’s workplace violence petitions fall within section 425.16, subdivision (d)’s exception for an “enforcement action brought in the name of the…

I respectfully dissent. It appears to this dissenting justice that the majority opinion is founded on a misplaced premise. The analysis and conclusion set forth in the majority opinion is that the City of Los Angeles was in actuality entitled to proceed only under the workplace violence statute found in section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in filing its three petitions in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The City of Los Angeles on the other hand has strenuously argued throughout that it was also proceeding on behalf of the people of Los Angeles County as a public prosecutor and was thereby entitled to the exemption contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 thus undercutting the probability that the Animal Defense League (League) would prevail on its SLAPP motion (strategic lawsuit against public participation). I interpret the record as presenting a hybrid situation in which the City of Los Angeles (City) was acting in a dual capacity, i.e., employer and prosecutor on behalf of the people. The majority, on the other hand, rather than recognize the hybrid nature of this *629 case, proceeds to employ an analysis which leads to the conclusion that the City’s…

The City of Los Angeles on behalf of two of its employees, Sharon Morris, then interim general manager of the City's animal services department, and David Diliberto, director of field operations for the department, filed three petitions under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 [1] seeking workplace violence protective orders against animal rights activist Pamelyn Ferdin Vlasak (Ferdin) [2] and the Animal Defense League—Los Angeles (ADL-LA) following a raucous nighttime protest at Diliberto's home. The trial court granted temporary restraining orders against Ferdin and ADL-LA in the two actions initiated on behalf of Diliberto, denied without prejudice a temporary restraining order in the action on behalf of Morris against ADL-LA and set all three matters for a hearing with respect to the City's request for permanent injunctive relief. In response Ferdin and ADL-LA filed special motions to strike the actions under section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. [3]

The trial court denied the special motions to strike, holding the City's workplace violence petitions fall within section 425.16, subdivision (d)'s exception for an "enforcement action brought in the name of…