28 Cal.App.5th 1146
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- 1550 Laurel Owner’s Association (the Association) filed a limited civil action (demand < $25,000) for breach of a settlement agreement against Stephen Munshi.
- Munshi filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, arguing the claims arose from protected petitioning/speech.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding such motions are not permitted in limited civil cases.
- Munshi obtained relief from the appellate division, which granted his writ petition and ordered the trial court to rule on the anti-SLAPP motion on the merits.
- The Association petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ directing the appellate division to vacate that order; the Supreme Court granted the petition and stayed proceedings.
- The Supreme Court held that Section 92(d) (which limits motions to strike in limited civil cases to those claiming damages/relief are not supported by the complaint) precludes bringing a special motion to strike under § 425.16 in a limited civil case, and granted the Association’s writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike (§ 425.16) may be filed in a limited civil case governed by § 92(d) | § 92(d) permits only motions to strike that claim the damages or relief sought are not supported by the complaint; therefore anti‑SLAPP motions are barred in limited civil cases | § 92(d) should not be read to bar anti‑SLAPP motions because § 425.16 is a distinct, broadly remedial statute that may pierce pleadings and thus falls outside the traditional “motion to strike” concept | Section 92(d)’s text and legislative context preclude anti‑SLAPP special motions to strike in limited civil cases; the appellate division’s contrary order was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (anti‑SLAPP motions may target discrete allegations within a cause of action; drafters used term “motion to strike” with that understanding)
- Snukal v. Flightways Mfg., Inc., 23 Cal.4th 754 (Cal. 2000) (discusses economic litigation procedures and policy supporting streamlined rules for limited civil cases)
- Grewal v. Jammu, 191 Cal.App.4th 977 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (explains importance of an immediate appellate remedy for anti‑SLAPP rulings to protect statutory purpose)