Category: Case Law

A recent case before the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in California involved a neighbor dispute, loud parties, and surveillance cameras. The case, Mezger v. Bick, et al. (decided July 1, 2021), concerned claims that comedian Kathy Griffin’s use of surveillance cameras violated her neighbor’s right to privacy. The Court ultimately sided with Ms. Griffin and her boyfriend, Randy Ralph Bick, Jr.

The Mezgers, who were Ms. Griffin’s neighbors, claimed that their new neighbors began making noise complaints about them shortly after moving in. The Mezgers then sued Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick, claiming violations of their right to privacy under common law and the California Constitution, and violation of Penal Code section 632. After discovery, Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick moved for summary judgment, providing evidence that they had installed the security cameras for their safety due to death threats Ms. Griffin had received.

The Mezgers opposed the motion, claiming that the cameras were solely to spy on them and to document their behavior to substantiate noise complaints made by Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick. They also offered evidence that the recordings were made without their consent or knowledge. The trial court ultimately granted the summary judgment motion, and the Mezgers appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal began by recognizing the standards involved with summary judgment motions, which require the Mezgers to show with admissible evidence “the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” The Court found in favor of Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick, citing their legitimate safety concerns and the fact that the recordings were made entirely on their property. The Court also rejected the Mezgers’ claims of pretext and analogies to Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ultimately found that Ms. Griffin’s use of the cameras did not violate the Mezgers’ right to privacy.

In California, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit filed against a defendant as a way of punishing them for engaging in protected activities. When such lawsuits are filed, the defendant can file an “anti-SLAPP” motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. To win such a motion, the defendant must show that the plaintiff’s lawsuit arises from their protected activities. Once the defendant has made such a showing, the plaintiff can defeat the motion by showing that the lawsuit has merit. A recent case, Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin, illustrates this process.

In this case, a homeowners’ association, Third Laguna Hills Mutual, sued one of its members, Jeff Joslin, for violating the association’s governing documents. Joslin had rented out his property to unqualified tenants who caused nuisance violations. Joslin responded by filing a cross-complaint against the association, alleging various tort theories. The association claimed that Joslin’s cross-complaint was a SLAPP suit and filed an anti-SLAPP motion.

The association argued that Joslin’s cross-complaint was in response to the association’s protected activities and communications, such as pre-litigation threats and the filing of the association’s lawsuit. The association also argued that the enforcement of the association’s governing documents is a public issue and falls under the anti-SLAPP statute. However, the court sided with Joslin, denying the association’s anti-SLAPP motion.

The court reasoned that the tort claims alleged in Joslin’s cross-complaint arose from the association’s decisions and actions, not from the association’s filing of the complaint. The court also found that the enforcement of the association’s governing documents is not a public issue or an issue of public interest under the anti-SLAPP statute. As a result, Joslin prevailed and was awarded his costs on appeal.

This case underscores the importance of homeowners’ associations (HOAs) conducting a diligent and comprehensive assessment, not only of the viability of a lawsuit before filing it, but also of all procedural steps taken during the course of the lawsuit.

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, inundating us with bad news almost every day, it’s a pleasure to share some good news! In a previous blog post, we mentioned that Douglas Kruschen was pursuing his own petition under Corporations Code section 7515 in Los Angeles.

Now, for the good news: Annandale Townhouse Association, Inc. has finally come to its senses and agreed to join Douglas in court to request a lower quorum. This means no more supermajority to amend governing documents, and a descending quorum for director elections, starting at 51% on the first attempt and lowering to 33.3% for subsequent attempts.

Judge Huey Cotton in Los Angeles has approved the amendments, making them valid and binding on the association’s members. Congratulations, Annandale, on the Kruschen Amendments becoming your new law. And congratulations, Douglas, on fighting the good fight for your members and succeeding.

However, there is still much work to be done. We look forward to working with Douglas soon as we approach our receptive legislators to work on wholesale reform and abolishment of quorum for common interest developments in California. Homeowner apathy remains a significant barrier to successful elections, and we must ensure that the disinterest of some does not negatively impact those who are interested.