P. ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Dist.

── P. ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Dist. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) THE PEOPLE ex rel. YOLO-SOLANO AIR C102574 QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV20241095) v. SPENCER DEFTY et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, Timothy L. Fall, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew C. Maclear, Jason R. Flanders, Kenya S. Rothstein, and Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group for Defendant, Cross-defendant, and Appellant. Klaus J. Kolb and Klaus J. Kolb, LC for Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Respondent Spencer Defty. Ameet O’Rattan Sharma for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent Diamond D General Engineering, Inc. Air Coalition Team and Ann M. Grottveit, Jeremy A. McLinden, and Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants, Cross-complainants, and Respondents. Pacific Legal Foundation and California Farm Bureau Federation and Caitlyn Kinard, Louis Villacci, Damien M. Schiff as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants, Cross-complainants, and Respondents. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association and Piero C. Dallarda, Chad Colton, and Best Best & Krieger LLP as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff, Cross- defendant, and Appellant. 1  Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (district) sued Diamond D General Engineering, Inc. (Diamond), its chief executive officer Spencer Defty doing business as Defty Farms (Defty), and Knotty Wood Barbecue Company, LLC (together with Defty and Diamond, defendants) for statutory and regulatory violations. The complaint alleges defendants failed to correct their conduct despite receiving notices of violation stemming from their business and agricultural operations. Diamond and Defty filed a cross-complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the notices of violation were based on an internal district policy that had not gone through proper rulemaking procedures. The trial court denied district’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to strike the cross-complaint. On appeal, district contends: (1) the causes of action alleged in the cross- complaint arise from district’s protected activities of investigating defendants’ violations, issuing the notices of violation, settlement offering, and filing the underlying lawsuit; (2) the public interest exemption does not apply; and (3) Defty and Diamond cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the causes of action alleged in the cross-complaint. We conclude the causes of action alleged in the cross-complaint do not arise from district’s protected activities because they challenge the validity of the policy upon which the activities were purportedly based. Having reached this conclusion, we need not discuss the likelihood of success on the merits of these causes of action. We publish to clarify that where, as here, it is easier to dispose of an anti-SLAPP motion on its merits, it is unnecessary to address the public interest exemption. Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Diamond provides agricultural services to farmers and ranchers, and Defty is Diamond’s chief executive officer. Defty is also the sole manager of Knotty Wood Barbecue Company, LLC. 2  Between 2023 and 2024, district issued three notices of violation to Diamond for operating an equipment unit without a permit, failing to install proper emission controls, and failing to minimize smoke in an agricultural burn. In an Ap