Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)

Citation: Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Parent Document: Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2007-08-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5608052/action-apartment-assn-v-city-of... ↗

Full Text

1,545 chars

Third, the City suggests that any claims brought by parties not involved in the underlying litigation, including government entities, are not barred by the privilege. The City relies on Rubin, supra, 4 Cal.4th 1187, in which we held that claims brought by a co-owner of a mobilehome park against a park resident and her attorney for soliciting other residents as clients in anticipated litigation against the co-owner regarding park conditions were barred by the litigation privilege, including a claim for injunctive relief under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; see Rubin, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1198, 1204). We stated in dictum “that the policy underlying the unfair competition statute can be vindicated by multiple parties other than plaintiff,” including the Attorney General, district attorneys, certain city attorneys, and “members of the public who, unlike plaintiff, are not adversaries in collateral litigation involving the same attorneys.” (Rubin, at p. 1204.) This dictum does not support the City’s argument that parties not involved in the underlying litigation are not barred by the litigation privilege from bringing actions pursuant to section 4.56.020(i)(l). In Rubin, we considered the application of the litigation privilege to actions brought pursuant to the unfair competition law, a state statute, whereas here we consider its application to actions brought pursuant to a local ordinance. As stated above, local governments may not create their own exceptions to the litigation privilege.

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text