Boutique Air v. Mondor CA1/1

── Boutique Air v. Mondor CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 Boutique Air v. Mondor CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE BOUTIQUE AIR, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, A172026 v. (San Francisco City & County COLLEEN MONDOR, Super. Ct. No. CGC-23-609388) Defendant and Respondent. BOUTIQUE AIR, INC., A172027 Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Francisco City & County v. Super. Ct. No. CGC-23-609388) AIN MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendant and Respondent. After defendant Colleen Mondor wrote—and defendant AIN Media Group, Inc. published—an article about plaintiff Boutique Air, Inc., Boutique sued, claiming the article was defamatory. Mondor and AIN filed special motions to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civ. Proc., 1 § 425.16.),1 which the trial court granted. Boutique maintains the court erred in several respects. We affirm. BACKGROUND The Parties and Their Relationships Boutique Air Boutique Air operates commercial passenger flights to airports located in rural areas and/or with low-volume passenger travel in the 48 contiguous states. It also operates charter flights. In conducting its business, Boutique enters into contracts with the United States Department of Transportation under the federal Essential Air Services program to provide air service to the local airports.2 The Department issues requests for proposals for providing air service to a given airport, and airlines, such as Boutique, put in bids to provide the required service. In the 2020 to 2022 timeframe here at issue, Boutique operated using almost entirely a single aircraft type–the Pilatus PC-12 passenger propeller 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. All undesignated references to a subdivision refer to the subdivisions of section 425.16. 2 Before airline deregulation in 1978, the government required air carriers to schedule and provide at least two daily round trips at each point on their certificates. Deregulation raised the concern that communities with relatively lower traffic levels would lose service entirely as carriers shifted their operations to larger, potentially more lucrative markets. To address this problem, Congress added section 419 to the Federal Aviation Act, which established the Essential Air Services program to ensure that smaller communities would retain a link to the National Air Transportation System, with federal subsidy when necessary. The program has been permanently authorized by Congress. (https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation- policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service [as of May 7, 2026].) 2 driven plane. The PC-12 aircraft can be flown with one or two pilots. Although Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations permitted the PC-12 to be operated with just one pilot, Boutique utilized a captain and a first officer (the Second in Command or SIC) to fly the PC-12, believing this was safer, especially when navigating large, heavily trafficked airports. Having two pi