Friday, March 23, 2018
Page 1
S.C. Limits Anti-SLAPP Motions to New Claims
Says Defendant Must Obtain Leave of the Court to Seek Striking Causes of Action In an Amended Pleading That Have Existed for More Than 60 Days
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A defendant has a right to file an anti-SLAPP motion in connection with an amended complaint only as to causes of action making their first appearance within the past 60 days, but the judge has the discretion to allow such a motion to older causes of action, the California Supreme Court held yesterday.
At issue was how a provision in the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, applies to revamped pleadings. It permits such a motion “within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion,” at any later time upon terms it deems proper.”
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Ming Chin said:
“Because the anti-SLAPP statute is designed to resolve these lawsuits early, but not to permit the abuse that delayed motions to strike might entail, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeal, that, subject to the trial court’s discretion under section 425.16, subdivision (f), to permit late filing, a defendant must move to strike a cause of action within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action.”
Affirms C.A. Decision
The holding mirrors that of the Nov. 30, 2016 opinion by Court of Appeal Justice Richard D. Fybel of the Fourth District’s Div. Three who said:
“We hold that, under section 425.16(f), an anti-SLAPP motion is untimely if not filed within 60 days of service of the first complaint that pleads a cause of action coming within anti-SLAPP protection unless the trial court, in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper, permits the motion to be filed at a later time.”
However, the Court of Appeal went on to examine the new causes of action which it found were not subject to being stricken because the plaintiff would probably prevail on them, while Chin said that his court expresses “no opinion” on that.
‘Judicial Efficiency’
Chin commented:
“Defendants argue that, because filing an anti-SLAPP motion stays discovery proceedings, and an appeal from the denial of the motion stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits of the causes of action affected by the motion, permitting defendants to challenge only new causes of action in an amended complaint cannot further judicial efficiency. We disagree. Perfect efficiency may be unobtainable. But limiting an anti-SLAPP motion to new causes of action can make the process more efficient. Claims unaffected by the anti-SLAPP motion might be able to go forward. Moreover, a rule limiting the anti-SLAPP motion to new causes of action can streamline the resolution of the motion and any ensuing appeal by limiting the number of issues to be resolved. The plaintiff also has control over what to allege in an amended complaint. An amended complaint might not add new causes of action subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, in which case no anti-SLAPP motion at all would be permitted.”
The court also granted review on the issue of whether “inconsistent claims survive an anti-SLAPP motion if evidence is presented to negate one of the claims,” but opted not to discuss that in the opinion.
The case is Newport Harbor Ventures v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 2018 S.O.S. 1345.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company