Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp.
239 Cal. App. 4th 1174
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- HP sued Oracle after Oracle announced in March 2011 it would stop porting Oracle software to Intel Itanium (used in HP’s high-end Integrity/Superdome servers), then later said it would resume porting after a Phase 1 ruling in HP’s favor. HP alleged breach of the Hurd settlement, promissory estoppel, and breach of the covenant of good faith and sought specific performance and damages.
- The trial court in a bifurcated proceeding held (Phase 1) that Oracle had a duty to support HP platforms; breach and remedies were reserved for Phase 2.
- HP’s initial damages reports assumed Oracle would not port future software; after Oracle’s September 2012 statement resuming porting, HP served supplemental expert reports asserting ongoing market uncertainty (including Oracle’s vow to appeal) still caused damages.
- On the eve of Phase 2 trial (one court day before start), Oracle filed an anti-SLAPP motion challenging HP’s damages theory as arising from Oracle’s protected petition/speech (its vow to appeal). The trial court denied the motion as untimely under the 60‑day rule and because Oracle failed to show good cause for late filing.
- Oracle immediately appealed the denial (which automatically stayed trial proceedings as to affected claims). The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the motion was far too late to serve the anti‑SLAPP statute’s purpose and that entertaining it would only delay and not conserve resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HP) | Defendant's Argument (Oracle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to entertain a late anti‑SLAPP motion | The motion was untimely and would not serve the statute’s remedial purpose; court properly denied it | The late filing was excused and the court should have exercised discretion to hear the motion because HP’s revised damages theory implicated protected petition/speech | Trial court did not abuse discretion; motion filed far beyond 60 days and could not achieve the statute’s purpose — denial affirmed |
| Whether Oracle’s appeal of the anti‑SLAPP denial was properly before the court | Anti‑SLAPP orders denying a special motion are immediately appealable only if a special motion was actually denied | Oracle contends denial is appealable and thus stays trial | Appealable under §425.16(i); appellate jurisdiction proper but appellate review sustains denial on timeliness/policy grounds |
| Whether HP’s damages theory (market uncertainty) springs from Oracle’s protected appeal‑related speech | HP argues damages derive from Oracle’s March 2011 announcements and continuing market uncertainty (including statements about appeal) — a non‑protected commercial/contractual context | Oracle contends HP’s use of Oracle’s vow to appeal makes that part of HP’s case arise from protected petition/speech, subject to anti‑SLAPP | Court treated the damages dispute as evidentiary and procedural (in substance a motion in limine); even if speech-related, the late anti‑SLAPP motion could not timely dispose of claims |
| Whether an excusable delay in filing requires the court to hear a late anti‑SLAPP motion | HP: even excusable delay does not oblige the court to hear a motion that cannot expedite resolution; trial court retains discretion | Oracle: depositions and later expert reports triggered a new 60‑day window or excused lateness | Excusable neglect does not eliminate court’s discretion; Oracle offered no colorable excuse sufficient to overcome delay and the motion’s futility |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (discusses anti‑SLAPP purpose and automatic stay of proceedings pending appeal)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar, 115 Cal.App.4th 1315 (criticizes misuse of anti‑SLAPP to delay litigation; describes SLAPP paradigm)
- Lam v. Ngo, 91 Cal.App.4th 832 (60‑day rule and effect of amended complaints on timing of anti‑SLAPP filing)
- Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow, 199 Cal.App.4th 676 (treatment of late anti‑SLAPP motions and court discretion)
- Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg, 166 Cal.App.4th 772 (two‑year delay in seeking leave to file late anti‑SLAPP motion; trial court abused discretion to hear it)