Barry v. State Bar of Cal.
212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124
Cal.2017Background
- Patricia Barry, an attorney, stipulated to professional misconduct and accepted recommended discipline from the State Bar; the State Bar Court approved the stipulation. Barry later filed a superior-court complaint challenging the discipline and alleging discrimination and institutional misconduct.
- The State Bar moved to strike Barry’s complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) and also demurred. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding the claims arose from protected petitioning activity and that Barry had not shown a probability of prevailing.
- One ground the trial court relied on was that superior courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over attorney-discipline matters, which are exclusively within the California Supreme Court’s authority.
- The trial court awarded the State Bar attorney’s fees under the anti-SLAPP fee-shifting provision (§ 425.16(c)(1)).
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that because the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Barry’s claims it also lacked power to adjudicate the anti-SLAPP motion and to award fees.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction can decide an anti-SLAPP motion and award fees when the motion is granted on jurisdictional (non-merits) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a court that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction grant an anti-SLAPP motion when the motion is based on lack of jurisdiction? | Barry: No — if the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims it cannot decide the anti-SLAPP motion. | State Bar: Yes — anti-SLAPP allows dismissal when plaintiff cannot show probability of prevailing, including for lack of jurisdiction. | Held: Yes. A court may resolve an anti-SLAPP motion on jurisdictional grounds. |
| Can a court that lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits award attorney’s fees under § 425.16(c)? | Barry: No — a defendant cannot be a “prevailing” party entitled to fees if dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction. | State Bar: Yes — the statute awards fees to defendants who prevail on the special motion to strike, regardless of whether dismissal is on merits. | Held: Yes. The court may award fees to a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion decided on jurisdictional grounds. |
| Does resolving an anti-SLAPP motion necessarily require resolving the merits? | Barry: Yes — anti-SLAPP requires the plaintiff to show probability of success on the merits. | State Bar: No — the statutory inquiry is whether plaintiff can establish a probability of prevailing, which can fail for non-merits reasons like lack of jurisdiction. | Held: No. The anti-SLAPP inquiry can be resolved on non-merits grounds (e.g., lack of jurisdiction). |
| Must jurisdictional challenges be raised only by demurrer rather than by anti-SLAPP motion? | Barry: Yes — demurrer is the proper vehicle to raise subject-matter jurisdiction. | State Bar: No — jurisdiction may be raised via anti-SLAPP motion; multiple procedural vehicles are available. | Held: No. Section 425.16 motion is a permissible vehicle to raise jurisdictional defects and is consistent with anti-SLAPP remedial purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (anti-SLAPP procedure described as summary-judgment-like and designed to end SLAPPs early)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis: threshold protected activity and plaintiff’s probability of prevailing)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (anti-SLAPP framework and purposes)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies plaintiff must show probability of prevailing on claim alleging a remedy)
- Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (court has authority to determine its own jurisdiction)
- Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 28 Cal.2d 460 (same: courts determine their jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Desert Christian Center, 193 Cal.App.4th 733 (trial court may award costs when dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (attorney fees awarded to compensate prevailing parties under fee-shifting statutes)
- Jacobs v. State Bar, 20 Cal.3d 191 (attorney-discipline matters fall within exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)
- Fairbanks v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 56 (courts should not rely on prior opinions for points not actually decided)