UKIAH (707) 462-6694
·
WILLITS (707) 456-9210
·
[email protected]

Anti-SLAPP Appeal

Brian Carter completed the appellate briefing for the firm’s clients in a case in which he successfully opposed in the trial court (Mendocino County) an anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16) filed by the plaintiff/cross-defendant, but the plaintiff/cross-defendant then filed an appeal from the denial thereof.  Mr. Carter then filed a cross-appeal for the firm’s clients from the trial court’s denial of the clients’ request for attorney fees pursuant to CCP section 425.16, subdivision (c) (frivolous motion).  Briefs in the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District included a Respondents’/Cross-appellants’ Brief and a Cross-appellants’ Reply Brief.  Mr. Carter also filed a motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal, relying upon 2nd District cases (including Moore v. Shaw (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 182) and 1st District cases ranging from Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 977, to Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 203.  The case involves the first step of the anti-SLAPP two-step test, and revolves primarily around the question of whether an anti-SLAPP motion can be filed after the person filing a complaint voluntarily dismisses the only cause of action therein that the defendant claims is a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation).  This directly implicates the Supreme Court’s decision in S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti (2006) 39 Cal.4th 374.  The case also raises questions about the meaning and holding in the Supreme Court’s decision in Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376.  The 1st District Court of Appeal is likely to decide the appeals in the first half of 2021.