Supreme Court of California

In a suit by a city against three of its former councilmembers and a former city administrator, claiming they violated Government Code section 1090 by voting on a waste hauling contract in which they held a financial interest, seeking to invalidate the contract and force defendants to disgorge campaign contributions made by the company that was awarded the contract, the denial of defendants' motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is: 1) affirmed in part where this case does not come within the statutory anti-SLAPP exemption for public enforcement actions; but 2) reversed in part where the votes cast in favor of the contract at issue were protected activity under section 425.16.

Appellate Information

• Published 2016/08/08

Judges

• CORRIGAN

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel