Balla v. Hall, D074804 (January 6, 2021)
California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) provides an early mechanism for dismissing lawsuits based on speech or petitioning activity that lack even minimal merit. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays discovery, although the trial court can lift this stay for good cause.
In this case, a property developer and two city council members sued another city council member and his campaign manager for defamation based on defendants’ false accusations that the plaintiff city council members corruptly conspired to steer a public works project to the developer in return for certain benefits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the campaign manager’s anti-SLAPP motion as to the defamation claim, on the ground that the plaintiffs presented evidence establishing a prima facie case that the defamatory statements were provably false statements of fact that were made with actual malice.
The Court of Appeal’s opinion clarified several important points about anti-SLAPP procedure. First, it explained that, properly stated, an anti-SLAPP motion can be directed at subparts of a cause of action. Second, the Court of Appeal suggested that, during the pendency of an anti-SLAPP motion, a trial court ruling lifting a discovery stay might be challenged only through a writ petition before the anti-SLAPP motion is decided, and that the issue may be moot on a later appeal from the trial court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion. Finally, the Court of Appeal made clear that the discovery stay can and should be lifted when it is necessary to do so.
