High court says suit may be illegal SLAPP

A lawsuit challenging two South Jordan residents who are fighting a commercial development in the Jordan River bottoms may be an illegal "strategic lawsuit against public participation" — a SLAPP suit — the state Supreme Court ruled this week.

The ongoing lawsuit, filed in 1998 by Anderson Development Co. against South Jordan residents Janalee Tobias and Judy Feld, accuses the two of overstepping their rights in their attempts to stop the proposed RiverPark Business Park. The ruling retains one of Anderson's three claims of intentional interference with economic relations against Tobias and Feld, leaving the lower court to decide whether Tobias and Feld went too far in trying to stop the commercial development.

Among other accusations, the lawsuit says Tobias and Feld interfered with Anderson's contract to buy land necessary for the project.

That contract said Anderson would buy the land if, by a certain date, the South Jordan City Council approved a zoning change that would allow Anderson to use the land for its business park. But Tobias and Feld persuaded the council to deny that zoning change by saying they were trying to raise money to buy the land themselves and preserve it as open space.

Because of the council's decision, the contract expired. A later contract was agreed on, but because of various offers to buy the land for open-space preservation, the new contract set the purchase price $175,000 higher.

The lawsuit is ongoing, but the high court agreed to consider several interim decisions made by 3rd District Judge Douglas Cornaby, including decisions to drop Tobias and Feld's SLAPP Act claims and their claims that in filing the suit Anderson intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress on them and that the lawsuit was an abuse of the legal process.

The justices ruled that the lower court should not have dropped the pair's SLAPP Act claim based on the fact that the suit was filed before the state Legislature passed the SLAPP Act. The ruling said the fact that the company continued its lawsuit after the SLAPP Act passed allows Tobias and Feld to argue that Anderson was simply using the suit to prevent their participation in the governmental process.

If the lower court determines Anderson violated the SLAPP Act, Tobias and Feld could be awarded attorneys' fees and damages, but the Supreme Court stressed that if that happens, the monetary award "will be limited to those (costs) incurred after the passage of the (SLAPP Act). To hold otherwise would result in a retroactive application of the statute, a prohibited result."

The justices agreed with Cornaby's decision to dismiss the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims but said Tobias and Feld should still be allowed to argue Anderson's suit was an abuse of the legal process.

---

E-mail: dsmeath@desnews.com