Nambiar v. The Regents of the Univ. of Calif. CA3

Filed 11/4/15 Nambiar v. The Regents of the Univ. of Calif. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

KRISHNAN NAMBIAR,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C073464

v. (Super. Ct. No. CVPO121928)

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

The University of California at Davis (the university) determined that organic chemical compounds stored in the laboratories assigned to chemistry professor Krishnan Nambiar posed a safety hazard. The fire marshal closed the laboratories and the university arranged to remove the compounds. Nambiar sued The Regents of the

1

University of California and an academic dean (collectively the Regents) for damages and injunctive relief, seeking, among other things, to stop the university from destroying the allegedly irreplaceable compounds. The Regents filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP motion).1 The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the Regents did not meet their initial burden to show that Nambiar’s fourth cause of action arose from protected speech or conduct.2 The Regents appeal from the trial court’s order denying the special motion to strike. The Regents now contend the fourth cause of action arises from protected conduct because (a) it is based on the abatement process conducted pursuant to university policy, (b) it is also based on statements made in connection with an official proceeding, and (c) public policy supports granting the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute to the university’s safety proceedings. The Regents further contend Nambiar cannot show that he is likely to prevail on the merits. We conclude the Regents did not meet their initial burden under the anti-SLAPP statute to establish that the fourth cause of action arises from protected speech or conduct. Because the Regents do not meet their threshold burden, we need not address the second step of the analysis, whether Nambiar is likely to prevail on the merits. We will affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motion to strike.