SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - An animal-rights group can be sued over the actions of protestors who invaded a horse track, lit off incendiary devices and blocked a race by lying on the track, a California appeals court ruled, rejecting arguments by the Sierra Club and others that the protestors engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
Golden Gate Land Holdings sued Direct Action Everywhere after four people climbed the fence of its Golden Gate Fields track in Berkeley, set off purple smoke bombs and blocked the track by connecting their arms with PVC piping “to make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to be physically removed.” Racing was halted for several hours until police arrested the trespassers.
Direct Action sought to block the suit under California’s anti-SLAPP law – for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – which allows courts to dismiss lawsuits based on constitutionally protected speech. A trial court denied the motion, ruling that Golden Gate sued over the trespassing and economic damage the protestors caused, not the protest itself.
California’s First Appellate District, Division One, upheld the ruling in a July 13 decision. Direct Action still has the opportunity to dismiss the case for lack of evidence or other flaws, the appeals court ruled, but it failed to meet the test for anti-SLAPP protection.
The law requires courts to apply a two-part test, either one of which can doom an anti-SLAPP motion. First, the defendant must show the lawsuit is based on protected activity, which includes speech on a matter of public interest. Second, the plaintiff must show some chance of winning, even if it has only “minimal merit.”
“The only fair reading of the complaint is that the wrong on which the claims against Direct Action are based was the organization’s alleged involvement in the illegal trespass, not its speech or petitioning activity,” the appeals court ruled.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Amazon Watch and the Sierra Club supported Direct Action with briefs arguing the trial court’s decision threatened anyone involved in a protest if a single participant broke the law. But the appeals court disagreed, saying there is a difference between legitimate speech and illegal activity.
“The anti-SLAPP law does not immunize advocacy organizations, including Direct Action, from claims based on vicarious liability for another’s non-protected conduct simply because of the nature of their organizational missions,” the court ruled. “Such claims might sometimes be unsupportable, but they might sometimes be legitimate.”
Direct Action argued it had no connection with the invasion of the track. It has said its goal is “a world where all animals are respected and viewed as individuals with autonomy over their own bodies” and Golden Gate says it live-streamed the trespassing on its Facebook page.
“Golden Gate’s claims did not seek recourse from Direct Action for these activities or circumstances,” the appeals court ruled, however, noting the track didn’t sue other protestors who remained outside the gates. “The wrong complained of was plainly the alleged illegal trespass.”
In support, the appeals court cited other cases including a lawsuit against a newspaper accused of encouraging someone to attach a tracking device to a car under the guise of “newsgathering.”