Cashman

City of Cotati v. Cashman

Bad Law
124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519·2002 Cal. LEXIS 5702·2002 Daily Journal DAR 9950·29 Cal. 4th 69·52 P.3d 695
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2002S099999California8,785 words

Opinion

concurrence Opinion

Brown, J.

I concur in the judgment. For the reasons offered in part C., the City of Cotati’s suit did not arise from the owners’ suit. (See also Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 98-100 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530 , 52 P.3d 703 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) Accordingly, the majority’s other grounds are dicta, which we need not address.

Baxter, J., and Chin, J., concurred.

Opinion

We must decide in this case whether a municipality's state court action for declaratory relief respecting the constitutionality of a mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance, filed in response to a federal court declaratory relief action brought by park owners respecting the same ordinance, constitutes a strategic lawsuit against public participation SLAPP) [1] within the purview of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16; the anti-SLAPP statute). We conclude it does not. [2]

In 1998, the City of Cotati (City) adopted a mobilehome park rent stabilization program. (Cotati Ord. No. 680, adding ch. 19.14 to Cotati Mun.Code.) After City enacted the program, Gene Cashman and others, owners of mobilehome parks (collectively Owners), sued City in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Owners sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and damages allegedly resulting from City's ordinance. In requesting a declaratory judgment, Owners alleged that "the following question [is] in actual controversy between the parties: Whether [City] effects an uncompensated regulatory taking by implementing and enforcing the…

lead Opinion

Werdegar, J.

We must decide in this case whether a municipality’s state court action for declaratory relief respecting the constitutionality of a mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance, filed in response to a federal court declaratory relief action brought by park owners respecting the same ordinance, constitutes a strategic lawsuit against public participation *72 (SLAPP) 1 within the purview of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16; the anti-SLAPP statute). We conclude it does not. 2

Background

In 1998, the City of Cotati (City) adopted a mobilehome park rent stabilization program. (Cotati Ord. No. 680, adding ch. 19.14 to Cotati Mun. Code.) After City enacted the program, Gene Cashman and others, owners of mobilehome parks (collectively Owners), sued City in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Owners sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and damages allegedly resulting from City’s ordinance. In requesting a declaratory judgment, Owners alleged that “the following question [is] in actual controversy between the parties: Whether [City] effects an uncompensated regulatory taking by implementing and enforcing the…

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.