Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson

Carson, California (city) (defendant) entered into an exclusive agency agreement (EAA) with Rand Resources, LLC (Rand) (plaintiff) pursuant to which the city appointed Rand as its exclusive agent to negotiate with the National Football League (NFL) about acquiring an NFL franchise. When the city declined to extend the EAA, Rand sued the city and Leonard Bloom (defendant), among others (defendants). Rand alleged that the city breached the EAA by confidentially communicating with Bloom about NFL franchise prospects. Rand further alleged that the city’s mayor lied to Rand when Rand asked about the city’s relationship with Bloom. Based on these allegations, Rand asserted a fraud claim against the city and Bloom. Rand also alleged that Bloom communicated directly with NFL officials on the city’s behalf and conspired with the city to avoid extending the EAA. Based on these allegations, Rand asserted claims for intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective business advantage against Bloom. The city and Bloom moved to strike pursuant to California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute. To prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, a defendant had to initially establish that a claim arose out of an act in furtherance of the defendant’s constitutional rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e) identified four categories of protected activity, including, in subpart (e)(4), conduct in furtherance of the defendant’s free speech or petition rights that was taken in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. The city and Bloom argued that the conduct giving rise to Rand’s claims fell within subsection (e)(4). The trial court granted the city and Bloom’s motion. The court of appeal reversed. The California Supreme Court granted review.