After the Leys’ dog killed neighbor Jeppson’s cat, the Leys paid Jeppson $2,000 as part of a settlement agreement.  After the settlement, a court granted Cates a restraining order against Jeppson.  Cates and her husband Otto alleged Jeppson hired men to cut through their fence, to trespass, and to trim their tree.  Jeppson previously demanded Cates and Otto cut the tree because it interfered with his ocean view; he had threatened action if he did not get his way.  They said Jeppson had intimidated them by screaming at them at their house.  Part of the restraining order commanded Jeppson to dispose of guns.

Cates told Heidi Ley about her troubles with Jeppson.  Heidi Ley told Eric Ley, who “felt compelled” to warn the community to be aware of Jeppson.  In a post on the Nextdoor.com website titled “Michael Jeppson’s Restraining Order” that allegedly reached some 951 neighbors, Eric Ley wrote as follows:

Since this is a neighborhood blog, I feel it is important to provide information about the case against Michael Jeppson for trespassing and vandalism on his neighbor’s property. Michael Jeppson of Raymond James Financial Corporation and Jeppson Wealth Management could face jail time for these charges. Most importantly, a restraining order was issued on 6/27/2017, and the courts forced Michael Jeppson to relinquish his gun arsenal due to the danger he poses to his neighbors. If interested, you can review the court document at lacourts.org for a one dollar fee. The signs in Michael Jeppson’s yard pictured below warn the neighborhood that he intends to solve disputes with gun violence, and he has stated this intent in countless blog posts and neighborhood fliers. Beware!

Jeppson v. Ley, 2020 WL 486970 (Cal. App. Ct. Jan. 30, 2020) *3. 

Ley’s post attached three photos of Jeppson’s yard signs, which forbade trespassing with images of guns and a bullet riddled human silhouette.  Jeppson sued the Leys for breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Leys filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 in response to Jeppson’s complaint, which was denied.  The Leys appealed.  On January 30, 2020 the California Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying the anti-SLAPP motion, finding as follows at *14-15: 

Neither Ley nor Jeppson were in the public eye.

None of their acts directly affected a large number of people beyond the three households. Ley claimed the mantle of town crier, but the conduct had directly involved only dog owner Ley, cat owner Jeppson, and tree owner Cates.

Despite the medium of the internet, the topic was not of widespread public interest. There is no issue of public interest when the speaker’s words are merely an effort to gather ammunition for another round in the speaker’s neighborhood wrangle.

Ley and Jeppson had a history of personal conflict when Ley decided to upload to the internet about Jeppson. … Ley sought to endow his statements with lofty justifications.  But the matter boiled down to Ley’s interest in gathering ammunition for another round in his clash with Jeppson.  Ley’s internet post merely manifested, and remained, his altercation with his neighbor.

… The website had a potential audience of 951, but there is no evidence anyone actually read or cared about Ley’s post.  There was a restraining order on Jeppson that barred him from harassing his tree-owning neighbor Cates. Ley proclaimed Jeppson a threat to public safety, but this involved Jeppson trimming Cates’s tree without her permission and Jeppson putting “no trespassing” signs in his yard.  Jeppson owned guns, but the restraining order blocked Jeppson’s access to them.

Ley’s arguments are ‘too tenuously tethered to the issues of public interest they implicate, and too remotely connected to the public conversation about those issues, to merit protection . . . ‘ (FilmOn, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 140 [2019].)   Under the case law, this neighborhood flap did not raise issues about the ‘public interest,’ even though it made an appearance on the internet.