Thursday, April 16, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Taxation Effort Was Protected Conduct Under CCP §425.16
Justices Say Suit Seeking Declaratory Relief as to Business’s Tax-Exempt Status Is Founded on Protected Conduct Based on Allegations in Complaint That Assessor Engaged in Public Comment and Advocacy on the Issue
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Orange County in response to a suit by a private company that runs a housing project and is seeking a declaration that it is immune from taxes on the ground that an exempt local joint-powers authority, with which it works, owns the real property.
Waterford Property Company, which controls five apartment complexes partially restricted to middle-income tenants, for sake of providing “affordable housing,” is seeking to have the Orange Superior Court determine whether it “has a possessory interest in the Apartments for purposes of property taxes.” Assessor Claude Parrish maintains that under California Revenue & Taxation Code §107, project administrators, such as Waterford, are subject to taxation based on “possession of land”—and in 2024 billed it $22 million for the preceding three-year period.
Judge Shawn Nelson denied the county’s special motion to strike, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, ruling that the first prong of the statute—protected conduct—is not implicated because the suit simply seeks a decision on “the propriety of the Assessor imposing property tax liability.”
Justice Maurice Sanchez wrote Tuesday’s unpublished opinion reversing Nelson’s order. He grounded that reversal primarily on Parrish having spoken out publicly in defense of his taxing stance and actions he took to promote his position, such as pushing the California Assessors’ Association to sponsor legislation specifying tax liability on the part of project administrators.
Protected conduct under §426.16’s first prong is speech or petitioning activity in connection with a public issue in a public forum.
The opinion remands the matter for a determination as to whether Waterford can meet the requirement under the second prong of §425.16: showing a probability of prevailing on the merits.
‘Arises From’
Waterford argued in its respondent’s brief:
“[T]his is a statutory interpretation case that has quite literally nothing substantive to do with protected speech. As this Court well knows and the trial court recognized, anti-SLAPP can apply only when a claim ‘arises from’ protected speech….
“As the trial court properly recognized, here, the ‘wrong complained of’ is ‘the Assessor imposing property tax liability on Plaintiff, even though Plaintiff, as a Project Administrator, did not, and does not, have possessory interest in the properties at issue.’…”
The county contended on appeal:
“In order to show that this dispute represents an actual, justiciable controversy meriting declaratory relief, and to establish that Respondent need not exhaust administrative remedies, Respondent relies exclusively on the public statements, advocacy, and petitioning activity of the Orange County Assessor, Claude Parrish. By choosing to do so, Respondent satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, and the trial court erred by concluding otherwise.”
Waterford countered that references by it to Parrish’s statements and advocacy “were provided as context in the Complaint and for which no relief is requested.”
Sanchez’s Opinion
Siding with the county, Sanchez said that “in claiming it is entitled to declaratory relief, Waterford relies almost entirely upon Assessor’s protected speech, advocacy, and petitioning.”
Based on references in the complaint to Parrish’s First Amendment activity, Sanchez determined that the declaratory relief action is grounded in protected conduct.
He also wrote that “the issuance of tax bills and liens for unpaid taxes constitute writings ‘made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a[n]...executive...body’ within the meaning of section 426.16, subdivision (e)(2).” Writings in connection with official proceedings are listed as examples of acts “in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech.”
Specific Conduct
Statements and advocacy by Parrish come under that and other examples in subd. (e) of protected conduct, the justice declared. Sanchez noted:
“…Waterford relies on statements by Assessor, including speaking at a public hearing of the Board of Equalization to argue Waterford is subject to property tax, writing an opinion piece in the Orange County Register concerning the taxation of projects like those administered by Waterford, speaking by phone to Waterford’s controller regarding assessing property taxes against Waterford, and meeting with Waterford’s principals and former Orange County Supervisor Lisa Bartlett to discuss these issues.”
He continued:
“…Waterford relies on Assessor’s protected advocacy and petitioning on matters of public interest. Waterford contends that Assessor ‘contacted the Treasurer-Tax Collector of Orange County to pressure her to place liens on the properties based on his assessments.’ Urging a public official to perform an official duty is the very essence of petitioning the government for redress of grievances….”
Sanchez added:
“Additionally, Waterford alleges that Assessor ‘acted as a ‘ringleader to other assessors to attack such projects statewide.’ Communicating with other county tax assessors to urge them to adopt a common position on these property taxes is also advocacy and petitioning activity….”
The case is Waterford Property Co. v. County of Orange, G064888.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company