Watkins v. Anderson CA1/5

Filed 4/3/14 Watkins v. Anderson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

GLORIA WATKINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A138399 v. TINA ANDERSON et al., (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS040633) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Gloria Watkins (plaintiff) filed suit against defendants Tina Anderson, Ella Broxton Henderson and Jennie E. Edney (collectively, defendants) for alleged acts of assault, battery, intimidation, threats and coercion during the course of an ongoing labor dispute. She appeals from an order granting defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute.1 We reverse, because the claims do not arise from acts protected by the anti- SLAPP statute. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) a violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7); (2) a violation of the Bane Act (Civ. Code, § 52.1); and (3) assault and battery. The first two causes of action were alleged as to all three defendants; the last was alleged as to Henderson and Edney only. Edney filed a cross- complaint asserting similar causes of action against plaintiff.

1 “SLAPP” is an acronym for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 85.)

1

Plaintiff’s three causes of action arise from an incident that took place at the Kaiser Vallejo Medical Center (Kaiser Vallejo) on July 20, 2012. The complaint alleges: (1) plaintiff is employed by the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which represents employees at Kaiser Vallejo; (2) defendants are shop stewards for the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU), which also represents employees at Kaiser Vallejo; (3) on July 20, 2012, while visiting Kaiser Vallejo, plaintiff was surrounded by about 25 SEIU shop stewards, a group that included the three defendants; (4) defendants Anderson and Henderson approached plaintiff in a confrontational manner, pointing at her and saying, “There she goes, there she goes!”; (5) the group then circled around plaintiff, clapping and chanting, “Get them out!,” with all three defendants coming very close to plaintiff in an aggressive manner; (6) plaintiff, frightened and worried she would be physically hurt, took out her cellphone to videotape the group; (7) plaintiff believed she was going to be hit by defendant Edney when Edney stepped toward her in an aggressive way saying, “Don’t tape me,” or words to that effect; (8) with the crowd still chanting and clapping, plaintiff walked to a nearby bench and sat down; (9) defendant Henderson sat down next to plaintiff and repeatedly rammed her elbow into the side of plaintiff’s torso for about five minutes as she clapped and yelled, “Call your back-up”; (10) plaintiff, who was in pain and feared for her safety, called her aunt, who came and sat next to plaintiff until plaintiff walked away; (11) the violence and threats against plaintiff were motivated by her position in a labor dispute between NUHW and SEIU. Defendants filed a special motion to strike, contending that plaintiff’s claims arose from a labor dispute constituting “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of . . . the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4).) Defendants further argued plaintiff could not show a reasonable probability of prevailing on her claims. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing her claims were based on acts of physical violence and intimidation not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 311-312 (Flatley).)