City brought action against proponent of city initiatives, seeking to have two initiatives passed by voters declared void. Proponent brought anti-SLAPP motion seeking dismissal of the suit and attorney fees.
The Superior Court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. Proponent appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- City’s post-election lawsuit against proponent implicated protected activity for anti-SLAPP purposes;
- City had power to seek to invalidate initiatives and did not have duty to defend initiatives, for purposes of proponent’s anti-SLAPP motion;
- Proponent was proper defendant in city’s lawsuit, for purposes of proponent’s anti-SLAPP motion;
- Initiative modifying rules governing city’s legislative bodies was not invalid under exclusive delegation rule, for purposes of proponent’s anti-SLAPP motion;
- Initiative modifying rules governing city’s legislative bodies was legislative in nature and thus was not invalid, for purposes of proponent’s anti-SLAPP motion; and
- Initiative amending sunset date of local sales and use tax increase was administrative in nature and thus was invalid, for purposes of proponent’s anti-SLAPP motion.