The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Baral v. Schnitt, S225090—Review Granted—May 13, 2015
The question presented is whether a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute) authorizes a trial court to excise allegations of activity protected under the statute when the cause of action also includes meritorious allegations based on activity that is not protected under the statute?
Plaintiff and defendant owned a company, IQ BackOffice LLC (IQ), with others. Plaintiff’s original complaint contained 18 causes of action alleging the defendant engaged in fraud and multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, including seizing control and secretly negotiating the sale of IQ to his advantage. The trial court applied existing authority (see, e.g., Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811; Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90) to hold the anti-SLAPP statute does not authorize a court to excise allegations concerning protected petitioning conduct subject to the anti-SLAPP statute from a “mixed” cause of action that also contains meritorious allegations not within the purview of the statute. On that basis, the trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, ruling: “[The] Anti-SLAPP motion still applies to causes of action or to an entire complaint, not allegations. Cases cited state that if a cause of action contains portions that are subject to anti-SLAPP and portions that are not, the defendant can move to strike those portions that are subject, i.e. the cause of action would be considered to contain two ‘counts’; one count subject and one count not. No case allows striking allegations per se under [section] 425.16; that is within the province of a regular motion to strike.”
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, affirmed in a published decision, Baral v. Schnitt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1423. It held the policy behind the anti-SLAPP statute is aimed at protecting petitions for redress and free speech rights against unmeritorious claims. But the court noted there are countervailing procedural rules intended to give the parties their day in court and promote efficient pretrial and trial proceedings. The court held the balance tipped in favor of allowing “mixed causes of action containing potentially meritorious claims to proceed unencumbered by the special procedures of the anti-SLAPP statute.”
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
