public interest exception in California

2025(Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 166 .) Under the public interest exception, a petitioner with no beneficial interest in the action may sue “where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty.” (Ibid. [cleaned up].) “This public right/public duty exception to the requirement of beneficial interest for a writ 13 of mandate promotes the policy of guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to ensure that no governmental body impairs or defeats the purpose of legislation establishing a public right.” (Ibid. [cleaned up].

2025(Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 168 .) However, application of the exception is “not a given.” (Loeber, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 569.) “No party, individual or corporate, may proceed with a mandamus petition as a matter of right under the public interest exception.” (Save the Plastic Bag, at p. 170, fn. 5.) “Rather, public interest standing serves as ‘an exception to, rather than repudiation of, the usual requirement of a beneficial interest.

2026The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 .) Here, the family court concluded the private and public interest factors weigh in favor of applying the forum non conveniens doctrine.

2025The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 .) “An alternative forum is suitable if it has jurisdiction and the action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of 10 EPICENTRX, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C.

2025(DKN Holdings 11 LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 .) Even assuming Covina meets the elements of issue preclusion, public policy prohibits its application. “[E]ven where the minimal prerequisites for invocation of the doctrine are present, [issue preclusion] ‘ “is not an inflexible, universally applicable principle; policy considerations may limit its use where the . . . underpinnings of the doctrine are outweighed by other factors.” ’ ” (Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 829 .) The public interest exception to issue preclusion was applied in City of Sacramento v. Sta

2022(See e.g., Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251 , 257–259 (Arcadia).) “Generally, collateral estoppel bars the party to a prior action, or one in privity with him, from relitigating issues finally decided against him in the earlier action.” (City of Sacramento v. State of California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51, 64 .) However, our state Supreme Court has found that “ ‘when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive . . . if the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed.’ ” (Ibid.) “The public

2025At the same time, we acknowledge the public interest exception, even where potentially applicable, may nevertheless “be outweighed in a proper case by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.” (Green, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 145 ; accord, Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 168 .) Where such overriding competing considerations are shown to exist, they may therefore justify a discretionary denial of public interest standing.

2024(Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 167 ; Green, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 144 .) Further, the timing of the petition does not provide a persuasive basis to deny application of the public interest exception.

2025The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, 8 and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (Stangvik), citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235 , 259–261 (Piper).) “The trial court has great flexibility in weighing [the private and public interest] factors; no one factor is de

2025The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, 8 and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (Stangvik), citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235 , 259–261 (Piper).) “The trial court has great flexibility in weighing [the private and public interest] factors; no one factor is de

2025(See Sierra Club, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 316 , italics added [“If a complaint satisfies the provisions of the applicable exception, it may not be attacked under the anti-SLAPP statute”].) “If a plaintiff's lawsuit comes within section 425.17, subdivision (b), it is exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute, and thus, a trial court may deny the defendants’ special motion to strike without determining whether the plaintiff’s causes of action arise from protected activity, and if so, whether the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on those causes of action under section 425.16, subdiv

2025(See Sierra Club, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 316 , italics added [“If a complaint satisfies the provisions of the applicable exception, it may not be attacked under the anti-SLAPP statute”].) “If a plaintiff's lawsuit comes within section 425.17, subdivision (b), it is exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute, and thus, a trial court may deny the defendants’ special motion to strike without determining whether the plaintiff’s causes of action arise from protected activity, and if so, whether the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on those causes of action under section 425.16, subdiv

2025(Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1458 (Tourgeman).) The public interest exception is codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (b).

2025(See Sierra Club, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 316 , italics added [“If a complaint satisfies the provisions of the applicable exception, it may not be attacked under the anti-SLAPP statute”].) “If a plaintiff's lawsuit comes within section 425.17, subdivision (b), it is exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute, and thus, a trial court may deny the defendants’ special motion to strike without determining whether the plaintiff’s causes of action arise from protected activity, and if so, whether the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on those causes of action under section 425.16, subdiv

2023(MHC Operating Limited Partnership 11 v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214-215 [Cases that “ ‘must be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ ” and require “ ‘ “practical considerations in the context of a particular litigation” ’ ” do not fall within the public interest exception.].) Second, the remedies under section 701.680, subdivision (c), require initiating a separate action in the superior court.8 (§ 701.680, subd. (c)(1), (c)(2).) Thus, even if such remedies are available to Kohan, they are not remedies that this court can grant Kohan in this appeal.

2021(See, e.g., MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 215 ; Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 228 .) She asserts, however, that we should exercise our discretion under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and posits this issue is likely to recur in the future.

2014(See Blanchard, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 915 [relevant inquiry in determining disproportionate financial burden is “what the plaintiff hoped to gain financially from the litigation in comparison to what it cost”].) Accordingly, given the circumstances discussed above, we conclude that Tourgeman’s filing this action placed a disproportionate financial burden on him in relation to his stake in the matter. e. Conclusion Because Tourgeman’s action satisfied each of the requirements of the public interest exception to the anti-SLAPP statute, we conclude that Tourgeman’s action was exempt from a

2014(See Blanchard, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 914 [“The Legislature ‘sharply defined’ the public-interest exception of subdivision (b) of section 425.17 by reference to the three ‘factors corresponding to the state’s private attorney general statute’ so that subdivision (b) ‘parallels the existing exception for actions by the attorney general and public prosecutors.’ (Assem.

2025It relied on Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 440 (Common Cause), in which our Supreme Court held the public interest exception applied to an action in which the plaintiffs sought to require local officials to deputize county employees as voting registrars.

2024(Common Cause, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 442 [“Mandamus . . . is the traditional remedy for the failure of a public official to perform a legal duty.”].) Loeber’s assertion of the public interest exception thus fulfills the exception’s purpose of giving citizens an opportunity to ensure the enforcement of public rights and duties.

2022It is at the latter stage that context proves useful.” (FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 149-150 (FilmOn).) “‘[I]t is not enough that the statement refer to a subject of widespread public interest; the statement must in some manner itself contribute to the public debate.’” (Id. at p. 150.) “We are not concerned with the social utility of the speech at issue, or the degree to which it propelled the conversation in any particular direction; rather, we examine whether a defendant—through public or private speech or conduct—participated in, or furthered, the discourse tha

2022It is at the latter stage that context proves useful.” (FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 149-150 (FilmOn).) “‘[I]t is not enough that the statement refer to a subject of widespread public interest; the statement must in some manner itself contribute to the public debate.’” (Id. at p. 150.) “We are not concerned with the social utility of the speech at issue, or the degree to which it propelled the conversation in any particular direction; rather, we examine whether a defendant—through public or private speech or conduct—participated in, or furthered, the discourse tha

2016The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” 9 (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 , citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261 (Piper) and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 507-509 ; see also Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-1464 .) Also o

2013The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation." (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 , citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261 (Piper) and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 507-509 ; see also Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-1464 .) The burd

2022Similarly, the bakery plaintiff in Woodhill Ventures had been mentioned in national publications, yet, as in that case, we believe “supposed proximit[y] to fame do[es] not turn this into a case of public interest.” (Woodhill Ventures, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 634; cf. Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 [concluding magazine article concerning a Finnish celebrity, Peter Nygard, the chairman and founder of an international company with over 12,000 employees worldwide and whose famous Bahamas residence which had been the subject of much publicity in Finland, was an issue

2020The Content of the Statements Did Not Implicate a Public Issue Although a statement may implicate a public issue because its subject is a person or entity “in the public eye” (FilmOn.com, supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 145-146; see Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1254 ), not every statement about a person in the public eye implicates a public issue (see Albanese v. Menounos (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 923, 934 [rejecting the argument “that any statement about a person in the public eye is sufficient to meet the public interest requirement”]; D.C. v. R.R. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1226

2020Becerra, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 497 .) Rather, even in a mandamus case where a plaintiff would have public interest standing, the court has discretion to deny standing based on countervailing policies. 13 The California Supreme Court discussed this aspect of public interest standing in Save the Plastic Bag, stating, “No party . . . may proceed with a mandamus petition as a matter of right under the public interest exception.” (Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 170, fn. 5 .) To the contrary, “The policy underlying the [public interest] exception may be outweighed by competing c

2020Becerra, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 497 .) Rather, even in a mandamus case where a plaintiff would have public interest standing, the court has discretion to deny standing based on countervailing policies. 13 The California Supreme Court discussed this aspect of public interest standing in Save the Plastic Bag, stating, “No party . . . may proceed with a mandamus petition as a matter of right under the public interest exception.” (Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 170, fn. 5 .) To the contrary, “The policy underlying the [public interest] exception may be outweighed by competing c

2022(See e.g., Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251 , 257–259 (Arcadia).) “Generally, collateral estoppel bars the party to a prior action, or one in privity with him, from relitigating issues finally decided against him in the earlier action.” (City of Sacramento v. State of California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51, 64 .) However, our state Supreme Court has found that “ ‘when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive . . . if the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed.’ ” (Ibid.) “The public

2022(See F.E.V. v. City of Anaheim (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 462, 465 [“In rare circumstances, a final judgment may be denied claim preclusive effect when to do so would result in manifest injustice”]; Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251, 259 [“The public interest exception is an extremely narrow one; we emphasize that it is the exception, not the rule, and is only to be applied in exceptional circumstances”]; see also Louie v. BFS Retail & Commercial Operations, LLC (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1562 [describing determination of the manifest injustice exceptio

2025(Ibid.) However, “[t]here is a split in appellate authority concerning the standard for reviewing a trial court’s application of the public interest exception.” (Loeber, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 570; see Reynolds v. City of Calistoga (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 865 , 874–875 [applying abuse of discretion standard of review]; City of Pomona, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 1174 [same]; 14 People for Ethical Operation of Prosecutors etc. v. Spitzer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 391 , 408 [applying de novo standard of review]; Loeber, at p. 571 [same].) Reynolds held a trial court’s ruling on public interest

2025When the duty is sharp and the public need weighty, the courts will grant a mandamus at the behest of an applicant who shows no greater personal interest than that of a citizen who wants the law enforced.’ ” (Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1159, 1174 .) “No party … may proceed with a mandamus petition as a matter of right under the public interest exception.… ‘Judicial recognition of citizen standing is an exception to, rather than repudiation of, the usual requirement of a beneficial interest.

2020(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief, the court will dismiss an appeal].) Petitioner asserts, however, this court should consider, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, the constitutional concerns raised by respondent’s revised pro. per. policies and procedures pertaining to investigative and ancillary defense services requests and subpoena review and respondent’s failure to provide sufficient written information regarding such pol

2020(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief, the court will dismiss an appeal].) Petitioner asserts, however, this court should consider, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, the constitutional concerns raised by respondent’s revised pro. per. policies and procedures pertaining to investigative and ancillary defense services requests and subpoena review and respondent’s failure to provide sufficient written information regarding such pol

2017The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 , citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261 [ 70 L.Ed.2d 419 , 102 S.Ct. 252 ] (Piper) and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501 , *204 507-509 [ 91 L.Ed. 1055 , 67 S.Ct. 839 ].) Also o

2017The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 , citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261 [ 70 L.Ed.2d 419 , 102 S.Ct. 252 ] (Piper) and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501 , *204 507-509 [ 91 L.Ed. 1055 , 67 S.Ct. 839 ].) Also o

2025The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, 8 and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (Stangvik), citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235 , 259–261 (Piper).) “The trial court has great flexibility in weighing [the private and public interest] factors; no one factor is de

2021“The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 .) “The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening California courts, protecting potential jurors who should not be called on to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing ties of

2020The Content of the Statements Did Not Implicate a Public Issue Although a statement may implicate a public issue because its subject is a person or entity “in the public eye” (FilmOn.com, supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 145-146; see Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1254 ), not every statement about a person in the public eye implicates a public issue (see Albanese v. Menounos (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 923, 934 [rejecting the argument “that any statement about a person in the public eye is sufficient to meet the public interest requirement”]; D.C. v. R.R. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1226

2018(See, e.g., Albanese v. Menounos (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 923 , 934, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 [rejecting view that "that any statement about a person in the public eye is sufficient to meet the public interest requirement"]; D.C. v. R.R. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1190 , 1226, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 399 ["No authority supports the ... broad proposition that anything said or written about a public figure or limited public figure in a public forum involves a public issue"]; Dyer v. Childress (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1273 , 1280, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 [defamation and false light action did not raise an issue of public

2018Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 487 , 500-501, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 ( Strathmann ).) In Strathmann, the relator sought recovery under Insurance Code section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A), concerning false or fraudulent insurance claims. ( Strathmann, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 502 , 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) There, we concluded the qui tam action met the public interest exception to the anti-SLAPP statute under section 425.17, subdivision (b). 13 ( Id. at p. 492, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) While analyzing the qui tam action in Strathmann , we noted, " ' "The driving force

2018Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 487 , 500-501, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 ( Strathmann ).) In Strathmann, the relator sought recovery under Insurance Code section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A), concerning false or fraudulent insurance claims. ( Strathmann, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 502 , 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) There, we concluded the qui tam action met the public interest exception to the anti-SLAPP statute under section 425.17, subdivision (b). 13 ( Id. at p. 492, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) While analyzing the qui tam action in Strathmann , we noted, " ' "The driving force

2016(Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1232 , disapproved on another point in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 167-168 , 170 & fn. 5; Mycogen Corp., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 904 .) Keller argues the public interest exception precludes the application of res judicata to Keller II.

2016Moreover, the City has shown a willingness to fulfill its public duty to ensure zoning code compliance.” (Keller I, supra, C072379.) Having raised the public interest exception as to the same claims and against the same party, res judicata bars Keller’s reassertion of the same argument. ( Mycogen, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 896-897.) Keller asserts he is entitled to declaratory relief in the present action because the City’s zoning determinations constitute “a continuing daily violation of the City Zoning Ordinance.” We are not persuaded because Keller’s request for declaratory relief is based o

2017There the citizen group was not a competitor but “a nonprofit public benefit corporation, and as such ha[d] no commercial or competitive interests to undermine or override its public interest standing.” (Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 915 .) In those circumstances it was “appropriate to apply the public interest exception.” (Ibid.) Also distinguishable is Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1241 (Marshall), where recognition of “citizen standing” was deemed appropriate because the aim of the petitioners was not to secure an opportunity to bid but to “protect

2014(See Rialto Citizens, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 913 [as a general rule, legal standing to petition for writ of mandate requires petitioner to have beneficial interest in writ’s issuance, but petitioner who is not beneficially interested may nevertheless have public interest standing under the public interest exception to the beneficial interest requirement]; Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 665 ] [pivotal question in determining whether case is moot is whether court can grant plaintiff any effectual relief].) Real parties al