Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

Bad Law
124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507·2002 Cal. LEXIS 5701·2002 Daily Journal DAR 9945·29 Cal. 4th 53·52 P.3d 685
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2002No. S094877California4,988 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Werdegar, J.

Must a defendant, in order to obtain a dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) 1 under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16; the anti-SLAPP statute), demonstrate that the action was brought with the intent to chill the defendant’s exercise of constitutional speech or petition rights? For the following reasons, we conclude not.

Background

As the Court of Appeal explained, defendant Consumer Cause, Inc., served on Shell Pipe Line Corporation and Texaco, Inc., predecessors in interest to plaintiff Equilon Enterprises, LLC (Equilon), a notice of its intent to sue for alleged violations of Proposition 65. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.7, subd. (d).) Consumer Cause’s notice asserted that numerous Shell and Texaco gas stations in Southern California had, since 1994, been polluting groundwater by discharging benzene, lead, and toluene into the soil. Consumer Cause sent copies of its notice to the state Attorney General, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, and the Los Angeles City Attorney.

Equilon did not ask Consumer Cause to clarify its Proposition 65 notice. Instead, it filed this lawsuit for declaratory and…

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.