Tenant Doesn’t Have to Own Property to Sue Trespassers
What Happened: Trader Joe’s sued a political organizing firm that sent agents to the parking lots of its stores to gather customers’ signatures for ballot initiatives without its permission. The firm asked the court to toss the case under the California Anti-SLAPP law barring frivolous lawsuits against defendants for exercising their rights “to speak and petition on matters of public concern.” The court found that petitioning for political causes on private property wasn’t protected activity conducted in a “public forum” and allowed the case to proceed.
Decision: The California appeals court upheld the decision to deny the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Reasoning: To get an Anti-SLAPP injunction, the defendant must first prove it engaged in protected activity; the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that its claims have merit and “a high probability of success.” The lower court focused only on the first prong and ruled against the firm. But even if it was wrong in finding the firm didn’t engage in protected activity, Trader Joe’s would still win under the second prong because its trespass and nuisance claims had a high chance of success. True, Trader Joe’s only leased the property and didn’t own it. But simply having possession of the property was enough to prove trespass and nuisance. And the undisputed fact that the petitioners were not only in the parking lot without permission but also disrupting store operations and bothering customers gave Trader Joe’s an excellent chance at proving its claims.
- Trader Joe’s Co. v. Aap Holding Co.: 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3744