Stansbury

City of Riverside v. Stansbury

Bad Law
155 Cal. App. 4th 1582·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1692·66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 12, 2007E040125, E040973California4,882 words

Opinion

Opinion

Miller, J.

Ken Stansbury (Stansbury), on behalf of Riversiders for Property Rights (RPR), submitted to the City of Riverside (the City) a ballot initiative measure to amend the City’s charter with respect to its practice of eminent domain. The City filed a lawsuit against Stansbury and RPR (respondents), seeking a declaration that the proposed initiative was invalid as it was not a proper subject for a local initiative. Contending that the City’s lawsuit was “an affront to [their] First Amendment rights,” Stansbury and RPR countered with an anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), which was granted. On appeal, the City maintains that its complaint was directed not at protected conduct, as required under the anti-SLAPP statute, but rather, at the validity of the proposed initiative. We agree and reverse the order. Indeed, as the City and amici curiae point out, if the trial court’s ruling is allowed to stand, no one could ever challenge an initiative’s constitutionality prior to the election, which is contrary to law.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2005, Stansbury submitted to the City the text of the proposed initiative, along with a request to forward a copy…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.