Sadeghi v. Snell CA4/3 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/24/14 Sadeghi v. Snell CA4/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    SHAHEEN SADEGHI,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                          G048583
    v.                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00614531)
    DELILAH SNELL,                                                         OPINION
    Defendant and Respondent.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald
    L. Bauer, Judge. Affirmed.
    Newmeyer & Dillion, John E. Bowerbank and Jack M. Rubin for Plaintiff
    and Appellant.
    Leopold, Petrich & Smith, Walter R. Sadler and Jamie Lynn Frieden for
    Defendant and Respondent.
    *                  *                  *
    Plaintiff and appellant Shaheen Sadeghi appeals from a judgment entered
    after the court granted a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section
    425.16 (section 425.16; anti-SLAPP motion) his complaint for libel and libel per se,
    slander and slander per se, violation of privacy, intentional and negligent interference
    with prospective economic advantage, and violation of Business and Professions Code
    1
    section 17200 (unfair competition) against defendant and respondent Delilah Snell.
    Plaintiff contends the court erred because the causes of action did not arise from
    protected activity and, even had they, he demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the
    merits. We conclude the court correctly granted the anti-SLAPP motion and affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Plaintiff owns the The LAB (Little American Business) Antimall (LAB)
    and The CAMP (CAMP) retail shopping centers in Costa Mesa.
    Between 2006 and 2008 defendant worked at a restaurant located in the
    LAB. In early 2006 she opened a retail store, the Road Less Traveled (Road) in Santa
    Ana. At that time it was a “green/natural living goods store.”
    2
    In December 2011 the OC Weekly published an article, written by
    Michelle Woo (Woo), about plaintiff and the LAB, entitled “Meet Shaheen Sadeghi, the
    LAB Man” (Article). The Article was lengthy. The trial court counted 68 paragraphs in
    the downloaded version. Woo interviewed plaintiff, competitors, and tenants, current and
    former, for the Article. As the trial court noted, some of their comments about plaintiff
    were “laudatory, some not.”
    As summarized by the trial court’s ruling, plaintiff “is prominently featured
    on the front page of the issue, with a drawing of the plaintiff occupying perhaps two-
    1
    He also listed a purported ninth cause of action for injunctive relief; however
    that is merely a remedy, not a substantive claim. (Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
    (2003) 
    107 Cal.App.4th 967
    , 984-985.)
    2
    The editor of the OC Weekly, Gustavo Arellano, is identified in the article as
    defendant’s boyfriend.
    2
    thirds of the cover and large print identifying [him] as “THE LAB MAN.” The cover’s
    synopsis of the story read: “In his quest to hipsterize OC retail, Shaheen Sadeghi has
    built quirkily beautiful properties – and gained more than a few critics.” (Capitalization
    omitted.) The Article included four color pictures of plaintiff’s properties.
    The Article chronicled plaintiff’s career background, including his time as
    an apprentice fashion designer and stints in management for clothing stores, including the
    presidency of Quiksilver. It was there he came to his understanding of shopping
    preferences of twentysomethings, leading him to his development of the LAB, built
    around an abandoned military factory. When it opened in 1994 the New York Times
    dubbed it the “‘frontier of shopping.’” The Article quoted one city official calling the
    development “a renaissance on Bristol Street [that] brought out the eclecticism that is
    Costa Mesa.”
    The CAMP, opened in 2002, catered to different consumers and tenants,
    and was depicted as “a woodsy, eco-hipster retreat.”
    The Article spent some time describing plaintiff’s then current projects,
    “overhaul[ing] Center Street in downtown Anaheim” and rehabbing the former Sunkist
    Packing Company building, also in Anaheim into a “gourmet food hall.” It also reported
    a proposed project in San Clemente that was not approved by the city council, followed
    by plaintiff’s suit against the city.
    The Article noted plaintiff was “often described as a ‘visionary’ in
    developers’ circles, a maverick who is making Orange County less Orange
    County . . . . His original ‘anti-malls,’ the Lab and the Camp in Costa Mesa, reign as
    hipster meccas, drawing flocks of young urbanites who recycle and eat vegan and refuse
    to buy sweaters in bulk at the Gap.” The Article depicted plaintiff as not just a retail
    developer but the “Curator of Cool.”
    Defendant was quoted toward the end of the Article, which recounted her
    discussion with plaintiff about the possibility of leasing space in the CAMP to Road.
    3
    Defendant “sa[id] the rent rate [plaintiff] gave was way too high, at least triple what she
    was paying, and she declined the offer. Then, she claims, he made a threat. [¶] ‘He
    basically said to me, “If you don’t move into my center, I will copy your business,”’ she
    says.”
    The next paragraph went on to explain defendant “believe[d] her store is
    the model for the Camp’s SEED People’s Market, . . . [which plaintiff] owns . . . with his
    wife, Linda. [Defendant] claims that SEED has approached many of the vendors featured
    at Road . . . and even used a photo of her shop in a promotional email sent out to
    customers. (The Weekly has a copy of the email.) [¶] When [plaintiff] warned
    [defendant] he would copy her, [defendant] was stunned–and then furious. ‘I just
    thought, “Go ahead and try,”’ she says. ‘Because I will tell you, having a green store
    isn’t about going out and buying a whole bunch of products. . . .’”
    Plaintiff was quoted as responding to defendant’s statements, saying, “‘I
    think she’s full of it.’ He says his business plan for SEED was dated ‘five years before
    she developed a business plan.’ [¶] ‘It’s a whole different store, whole different vibe,’ he
    says, ‘and it has nothing to do with Road . . . .’”
    There was one other unattributed sentence earlier in the Article, stating,
    “One woman claims [plaintiff] modeled the concept for a new store after her own when
    she decided not to sign a lease.”
    The Article also stated plaintiff has “a legion of foes, including current,
    former and prospective tenants and even city leaders.” One former tenant who leased
    space in the CAMP for six years was quoted, “‘[Plaintiff] is not out to enhance the
    community–he’s out for [himself], period.’ . . . ‘He’s the most terrible landlord I’ve ever
    encountered.’”
    The Article reported plaintiff had been “accused of luring inexperienced
    entrepreneurs into his retail centers, then pushing them out with outlandish fees and
    climbing rent. ‘People want to believe in his mission, but it’s all a façade,’ says one
    4
    anonymous tenant. ‘He’ll make your business cool, but at what expense?’” Yet other
    tenants and former tenants praised plaintiff for giving them opportunities to build their
    businesses.
    The record contains six pages of online comments in response to the
    Article.
    In October 2012, The OC Weekly’s cover story was entitled, “Child
    Molesters, Serial Killers and Dana Rohrbacher: OC’s Scariest People, 2012!” Several
    pages into the article plaintiff was listed at position number 31. It listed the LAB, the
    CAMP and the Anaheim projects as “Cool.” As “Not so cool,” it stated plaintiff had
    “been accused of stealing ideas from indie business owners and preying on inexperienced
    entrepreneurs. He’s known to lure new companies into his retail centers, but if these
    ‘little guys’ turn out to be ‘weak tenants,’ in his words, he’ll push them out, typically by
    spiking the rent. One former tenant summed it up best: ‘[Plaintiff] is not out to enhance
    the community–he’s out for [himself], period.” A Google search for this article brought
    it up as the first result and listed the title as “Child Molesters, Shaheen Sadeghi, serial
    killers, Dana Rohrbacher and so many more!”
    The LAB’s Web site as of January 2013 listed its sales as rivaling those of
    South Coast Plaza. It also boasted The LAB’s unique tenant mix “continue[s] to garner
    international attention.” And the center has “become the creative heart of the blossoming
    Sobeca [South on Bristol Entertainment, Culture, Arts] arts district in Costa Mesa . . . .”
    It describes the CAMP as a “community driven center,” “environmentally
    focused,” “highlighting individual sports” “and progressive eating choices.”
    Plaintiff gave a TEDx speech in 2010 on the subject of his retail and
    consumer philosophy entitled “Culture is The New Currency.”
    The record contains numerous articles from sources including the New
    York Times (five articles about the LAB plus at least one other); the Los Angeles Times
    (six about the LAB, one about the Anaheim projects, and at least one other); the Orange
    5
    County Register (one about the LAB and another about plaintiff’s lifestyle); Coast
    Magazine (two lifestyle articles); and Shopping Center Today Online. In addition
    searches of plaintiff’s name yielded over 27,000 results.
    In November 2012, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendant,
    alleging the eight causes of action listed above. The gravamen of these claims is that
    defendant “falsely and maliciously accus[ed] [p]laintiff of threatening to copy her idea of
    her store if she did not move into the Camp as a tenant.”
    DISCUSSION
    1. Introduction and Applicable Law
    Section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) provides a party may bring a special
    motion to strike any “cause of action against [that party] arising from any act [the party
    commits] in furtherance of the . . . right of petition or free speech under the United States
    Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue . . . .” An
    “‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of . . . free speech under the United States or
    California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes: . . . any written or
    oral statement or writing made . . . in a . . . public forum in connection with an issue of
    public interest[] or . . . any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the
    constitutional right of . . . free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of
    public interest.” (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3), (4).)
    When we review a judgment of dismissal after the grant of an anti-SLAPP
    motion, we “must engage in a two-step analysis under this section. First [we have] to
    determine whether the defendant has met [his] burden to show ‘“that the challenged
    cause of action is one arising from protected activity.”’ [Citation.] If so, the burden
    shifts to the plaintiff[] to show the likelihood of prevailing on the claim. [Citation.]
    ‘“We consider ‘the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits . . . upon which the
    liability or defense is based.’ [Citation.] However, we neither ‘weigh credibility [nor]
    compare the weight of the evidence. Rather, [we] accept as true the evidence favorable
    6
    to the plaintiff [citation] and evaluate the defendant’s evidence only to determine if it has
    defeated that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law.’ [Citation.]” [ Citations.]’
    [Citation.]” (Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc. (2010) 
    187 Cal.App.4th 709
    , 714-715.)
    We review an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion de novo. (Flatley v.
    Mauro (2006) 
    39 Cal.4th 299
    , 325-326.) “If the trial court’s decision is correct on any
    theory applicable to the case, we affirm the order regardless of the correctness of the
    grounds on which the lower court reached its conclusion.” (Robles v. Chalilpoyil (2010)
    
    181 Cal.App.4th 566
    , 573.)
    2. Protected Speech
    The speech at issue here is defendant’s statement that plaintiff said he
    3
    would copy her business if she did not lease space in the CAMP. Plaintiff contends
    defendant has not met her burden to show this statement fell within section 425.16,
    subdivision (e)(3) or (e)(4), i.e., that defendant’s statement was made in a public forum
    regarding an issue of public interest or that it was an exercise of her right of free speech
    regarding a public issue or an issue of public interest.
    There is no question the OC Weekly is a public forum. (Damon v. Ocean
    Hills Journalism Club (2000) 
    85 Cal.App.4th 468
    , 478 [“‘public forum’ includes a
    communication vehicle that is widely distributed to the public and contains topics of
    public interest”].)
    Plaintiff claims defendant’s statement is not a public issue or a matter of
    public interest because it merely concerned a potential private lease transaction between
    him and defendant. Plaintiff’s interpretation of the terms public issue and public interest
    is much too narrow.
    3
    Throughout his briefs, plaintiff insists defendant also stated he had stolen her
    business model, but that is not alleged anywhere in the complaint, which frames the
    issues in an anti-SLAPP motion. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 
    29 Cal.4th 82
    , 89.)
    7
    “‘[A]n issue of public interest’ within the meaning of section 425.16,
    subdivision (e)(3) [and by virtue of identical language, subdivision (e)(4),] is any issue in
    which the public is interested.” (Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 
    159 Cal.App.4th 1027
    , 1042, italics omitted.) The issue itself is not required to be “significant.” (Ibid.)
    Further, while “‘“[t]he focus of the speaker’s conduct should be the public
    interest . . . [citation],”’” “[n]evertheless, it may encompass activity between private
    people. [Citation.]” (Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc., supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 716.)
    The record reflects plaintiff and his business activities are matters of public
    interest. Plaintiff portrays his businesses as containing environmentally friendly tenants,
    and his Web site declares the LAB’s unique mix of tenants draws international attention.
    He claims his centers are the heart of a burgeoning arts and entertainment center in
    Orange County, with a goal to make “Orange County less Orange County.” And he
    boasts they have sales comparable to those at South Coast Plaza.
    These things are of interest to developers, consumers, and the culture and
    entertainment public. As the trial court stated, “[e]co-friendly merchandising,
    rehabilitation of old buildings, and the goal of making Orange County a hip community
    are matters of public interest.” The identity of plaintiff’s tenants and his business
    practices fall within that umbrella.
    Further, as the trial court noted, the OC Weekly found plaintiff was a matter
    of public interest and believed a piece about him would contribute to its circulation. And
    the paper, not defendant, initiated the Article.
    Plaintiff relies on Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical
    Workers (2003) 
    110 Cal.App.4th 107
    , which states that “public interest” includes “private
    conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a
    manner similar to that of a government entity.” (Id. at p. 115) He argues defendant’s
    statement does not fit into that matrix. But Du Charme reiterated the dictate to interpret
    8
    “public interest” broadly (ibid.), and on its face the quoted language shows it was not
    intended to be an exclusive definition of public interest.
    Cases have upheld a finding of public interest where the speech was of
    interest to a particular community and not connected with a governmental entity. For
    example speech regarding the writing, casting, and airing of an episode of CSI was an
    issue of public interest to those who followed the show. (Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting,
    Inc. (2011) 
    193 Cal.App.4th 133
    , 144.) The proposed development of waterfront
    property was a matter of public interest sufficient to bring communications regarding the
    development within protection of the statute. (Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc.
    v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 
    106 Cal.App.4th 1219
    , 1233.) And statements on
    a Web site regarding a dispute between two cat breeding groups were found to be a
    matter of public interest in that community. (Traditional Cat Assn, Inc. v. Gilbreath
    (2004) 
    118 Cal.App.4th 392
    , 397.)
    Moreover, “‘“there is a public interest which attaches to people who, by
    their accomplishments, mode of living, professional standing or calling, create a
    legitimate and widespread attention to their activities . . . .” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]”
    (Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC (2010) 
    181 Cal.App.4th 664
    , 677-678.) For example, in
    Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, supra, 
    159 Cal.App.4th 1027
    , comments made to a Finnish
    magazine by a former employee of the plaintiff about the plaintiff’s founder were found
    to be matters of public interest. The record showed the Finnish public were particularly
    interested in the founder and information about his famous home. The “article was
    intended to satisfy that interest.” (Id. at p. 1042.)
    The lifestyle pieces about plaintiff are evidence the public is interested not
    only in his businesses but in his personal life as well.
    As an alternate ground, plaintiff maintains the statement is not a matter of
    public interest because it is not at all connected with governmental affairs or a
    governmental entity’s impact on a community. But “public interest” has been construed
    9
    to include issues that involve private citizens and entities. (Du Charme v. International
    Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 115.)
    In sum, defendant met her burden to show the statements concerned matters
    of public interest.
    3. Probability of Prevailing on the Merits
    Because defendant showed the causes of action arose from protected
    activity, the burden shifted to plaintiff to show the probability he could prevail on the
    merits of his claims. We agree with the trial court that he did not do so.
    Each of the eight causes of action was based on defendant’s statement that
    plaintiff said he would copy her business if she did not lease space in the CAMP. It was
    specifically alleged in the five defamation causes of action and incorporated by reference
    in the other three causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with
    prospective economic advantage and unfair competition in violation of Business and
    Professions Code section 17200. In the two common law tort causes of action plaintiff
    alleges defendant committed unlawful slander, libel or invasion of privacy. In the unfair
    competition cause of action plaintiff generically alleges defendant engaged in unfair
    business practices.
    To make out a prima facie case, plaintiff must show the statement
    defendant made was wrongful. “The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication
    that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure
    or causes special damage. [Citation.]” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 
    189 Cal.App.4th 1354
    ,
    1369.)
    “Whether a statement can reasonably be given any defamatory
    interpretation is a legal question that we must resolve by determining the sense or
    meaning of the statements, under all the circumstances attending the publication,
    according to the natural and popular construction which would be ascribed to them by the
    average reader. [Citation.]” (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel (1999) 
    73 Cal.App.4th 10
    1, 5-6.) A review of defendant’s statement convinces us that, under all the circumstances,
    an average reader would not attribute a defamatory meaning to it.
    Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, defendant did not accuse him of stealing or
    committing a crime. Moreover, the statement plaintiff would copy defendant’s business
    model did not subject plaintiff to “‘“hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy.”’” (Nygård,
    Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047-1048; Civ. Code, § 44.) A
    reasonable member of the public would not be shocked or troubled on reading that.
    There are businesses familiar to the public that copy their competitors. The trial court
    mentioned Pepsi and Coke. Fast food hamburger restaurants are another prime example.
    Those businesses are not subject to obloquy or shame but rather are heavily patronized.
    That is the nature of competition among businesses.
    Plaintiff relies on the alleged wrongful nature of defendant’s statement to
    support his causes of action for interference with prospective economic advantage and
    unfair competition. But because the statement was not defamatory or otherwise
    wrongful, it cannot be the basis of any cause of action. Thus, plaintiff has not met his
    burden and the motion was properly granted.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. Defendant is entitled to costs on appeal.
    THOMPSON, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
    ARONSON, J.
    11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: G048583

Filed Date: 12/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021