California Legal Brief

The Rule of AVL Test Systems, Inc. v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is that whether goods installed "become a fixed part of the structure" under Business and Professions Code section 7045's exemption from contractor licensing requirements is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment when competing expert evidence exists, under circumstances involving complex equipment installation with substantial connections to the structure.

The Rule of People ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District v. Spencer Defty is that a cross-complaint challenging the validity of an internal agency policy does not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute when the regulatory enforcement actions are merely evidence of the policy's application rather than the basis for liability, under circumstances where the cross-complaint seeks declaratory relief that the policy was adopted without proper rulemaking procedures.

The Rule of Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association v. City of Santa Rosa is that during a declared state of emergency, Penal Code section 396's definition of "rental price" for rent-controlled mobilehome spaces occupied at the time of the emergency declaration refers to the rental amount authorized under the local rent control ordinance at the time of the emergency declaration, not at any given time thereafter, and mobilehome park owners cannot "recoup" suppressed rent increases by using those increases as a baseline for post-emergency rent calculations, under circumstances where rent-controlled mobilehome spaces are subject to both local rent control ordinances and section 396's 10-percent cumulative cap during a multi-year emergency declaration.

The Rule of Waterford Property Company v. County of Orange is that a declaratory relief action challenging governmental tax assessments arises from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute when the claim relies upon the government entity's public statements, advocacy, petitioning activities, and official communications regarding the tax assessments, under circumstances where the plaintiff frames the dispute as involving broader public policy issues and relies on the government's protected speech to establish both the existence of an actual controversy and the need for declaratory relief.

The Rule of Clapkin v. Levin is that a cross-complaint does not arise from protected litigation activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 when the claims are based on the defendant's unprotected business conduct that supplies the elements of liability, even where the cross-complaint references prior litigation for context and evidence, under circumstances where the same dispute would exist absent the litigation activity.

The Rule of Jacobs v. Papez is that an attorney may bring a single declaratory relief action against both the clients and a competing attorney lien claimant to enforce an attorney lien claim on settlement or judgment proceeds, under circumstances where the attorney obtained a recovery for clients and seeks to resolve competing lien claims without having to wait for other attorneys to first establish their liens in separate actions.

The Rule of Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles is that a charter city may enact an ordinance establishing a local housing and/or homelessness emergency that confers mayoral powers to address conditions within the city's territory, under circumstances where the ordinance defines different types of emergencies and powers than those provided in the California Emergency Services Act and does not conflict with CESA's coordination and mutual aid framework.