Baral v. Schnitt
1 Cal. 5th 376
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Baral sued former co-owner Schnitt for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and declaratory relief arising from Schnitt’s sale of IQ BackOffice and a Moss Adams audit that allegedly contained false information.
- The complaint included allegations based on both protected prelitigation communications (the Moss Adams audit and related statements) and unprotected corporate/transactional misconduct (the sale and usurpation of Baral’s ownership).
- Schnitt filed anti‑SLAPP motions seeking to strike claims based on the protected communications; the trial court denied relief on the ground an anti‑SLAPP motion could not target parts of a pleaded cause of action.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying the so‑called Mann rule that a mixed cause of action survives if the plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing on any part of the pleaded count.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve the split: whether section 425.16 permits striking particular claims/allegations within a pleaded cause of action that combine protected and unprotected activity.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding anti‑SLAPP motions can target claims based on protected activity even when those allegations are joined in a single pleaded count with unprotected allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anti‑SLAPP motion may be used to strike particular claims or allegations within a pleaded cause of action that mixes protected and unprotected activity | Baral relied on Oasis and Mann: if any part of a pleaded cause of action has a probability of success, the entire cause should survive (Mann rule) | Schnitt argued section 425.16 targets claims arising from protected acts and thus an anti‑SLAPP can attack claims based on protected activity even if pled alongside unprotected acts | Anti‑SLAPP may target and strike claims based on protected activity; Mann rule disapproved — plaintiff must show probability of prevailing as to each challenged claim arising from protected activity |
| Whether “cause of action” in §425.16(b)(1) should be read as indivisible primary‑right rather than as claim(s) based on particular acts | Baral argued the statute’s use of “cause of action” supports Mann and primary‑right approach | Schnitt argued statutory context and purpose show the focus is on claims arising from protected acts, not abstract primary‑right grouping | The Court rejected the primary‑right/indivisible reading for anti‑SLAPP purposes; focus is on claims grounded in specific protected acts |
| Allocation of burdens and procedure on mixed‑activity pleadings | Baral argued the complaint organization should prevent piecemeal anti‑SLAPP relief | Schnitt urged courts should identify protected‑act allegations and require plaintiff to show likelihood of success on each challenged claim | Court clarified first step: defendant identifies allegations of protected activity and the claims they support; second step: plaintiff must show legal sufficiency and prima facie factual support for each challenged claim based on protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (court analyzed viability of discrete facets of causes of action under anti‑SLAPP)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (plaintiff must substantiate a legally sufficient claim at step two; quoted Mann language in context)
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 120 Cal.App.4th 90 (propounded the rule that a mixed cause survives if plaintiff can prevail on any part — disapproved here)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (focus on defendant’s activity that gives rise to liability for anti‑SLAPP analysis)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (primary‑right theory described)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (definition of "cause of action . . . arising from" in anti‑SLAPP context)