Contact Us

SBEMP Wins in Court of Appeals For Morningside Community: Court Denies Anti-SLAPP Motions

Tag Archives: Litigation

Case Summary

Plaintiffs and Respondents, homeowners in the Morningside community in Rancho Mirage, challenged an amendment to their homeowners association covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that imposed a $250 monthly assessment against non-members to subsidize the costs of maintaining The Club at Morningside members-only golf and tennis club in the residential desert community. The Club’s members were not required to pay the new assessment.

Plaintiffs sued several defendants, including appellants The Morningside Community Association and its directors, the Club at Morningside and its directors, and Peters & Freedman LLP, and David M. Peters, lawyers for the Association.

Defendants responded by filing Anti-SLAPP motions.

Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney LLP represented the Plaintiffs and Respondents. The trial court denied Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, and the Court of Appeals recently affirmed. Shaun Murphy opposed the anti-SLAPP motions in the trial court and Wendy Dowse handled the appeal.

Case Background

The Association manages the common areas of the Morningside Community. The Club is located within the Morningside Community, but not all members of the Association are members of the Club. The governing boards of both the Association and the Club collaborated, with legal assistance from the Peters Defendants, and proposed a new $250 assessment on each resident. While all Morningside homeowners would be charged the assessment, Club/Association Members would receive a credit of 100 percent of the monthly payment towards Club dues.

The adoption of the new assessment required a vote to amend the CC&Rs, approved by a majority of the residents. The Association retained Mr. Peters as the “independent” inspector of elections. During the election, Association directors requested and obtained confidential voting information from the Peters Defendants, and used the information, before the election was completed and votes tabulated.

The Peters Defendants supplied information (including ballots received and cast) to the Association’s directors, including a list of members who had not voted. The Club then used that information to call Club/Association Members. For example, an Association director and Club Member sent an email to the Association General Manager, an Association director, and the Club General Manager, stating: “I just spoke with Dave Peters. Because I asked him for the list of who has voted he is sending it to me. If someone else asks him for it he will send it to them. Let’s keep this absolutely between the four of us… [We] will have to just ask people to call certain numbers without telling them you know they haven’t voted.”

The majority approved the amendment to require the minority to subsidize the Club. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit to challenge the validity of the new assessment. Plaintiffs’ complaint identifies a number of acts of alleged misconduct surrounding the election on the Propriety Fee, and includes causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty/conspiracy to violate election statutes, fraud/deceit restitution and declaratory relief.


The trial court denied Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, concluding that Plaintiffs’ causes of action based on the election did not arise from protected activity. On October 31, 2018, the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s causes of action did not arise from protected activity, and that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.

For more information or to request a consultation please contact the law offices of SBEMP (Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney) by clicking here. 

SBEMP LLP is a full service law firm with attorney offices in Palm Springs (Palm Desert, Inland Empire, Rancho Mirage), CA; Costa Mesa (Orange County), CA; San Diego, CA; Princeston, NJ; and New York, NY.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. This blog post may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained within this blog post. Before acting or relying upon any information within this newsletter, seek the advice of an attorney.

Many people may not be aware that California has yet to pass the Uniform Deceptive Practices Act. As a result, the State handles deceptive practices regarding Commercial trade through the California Business and Professions Code. More specifically, § 17500 et seq. Articles 17500, 17500.5 and 17505 are applicable in prohibiting false advertisements. In accordance with Section 17500, these violations can be punishable as a misdemeanor by a maximum fine of $2500, and/or up to six months of county jail time.
Continue reading

Disputes can occur at all stages of a construction project. Construction litigation is risky, the damage awards can be large, and professional reputations, and emotions are often involved. Our Palm Springs business litigation law firm understands the interests, and the stakes of those involved. Resolutions require pragmatic approaches, and experience. Representation is required for contractors, suppliers, architects, developers, tenants, engineers, purchasers, insurance companies, and sellers.  Continue reading

Palm Springs

Orange County

San Diego


New York

Palm Springs
1800 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Orange County
650 Town Center Drive, Ste. 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
San Diego
2240 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
103 Carnegie Center Blvd., Ste. 101
Princeton, NJ 08540
New York
405 Lexington Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York