JKC3H8 v. Colton
221 Cal. App. 4th 468
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Neighbors dispute over use of Huse Road in Ripon, CA; original complaint alleged protected harassment and nuisance claims tied to a temporary restraining order.
- Original complaint (Oct 3, 2011) included references to a TRO and alleged threats, trespass, speeding, damage to crops, and other harassment.
- First amended complaint (Dec 6, 2011) removed references to the TRO and defamation; added explicit lists of alleged wrongful acts.
- Anti-SLAPP motion filed the same day asserting the TRO references in the original complaint rendered the claims arising from protected activity.
- Trial court ruled the demurrer moot after the amended complaint; anti-SLAPP motion later held not resolved as moot until appellate review.
- Court holds that amendment supersedes the original complaint and moots an anti-SLAPP motion directed at the prior pleading; however, it vacates with costs to plaintiffs and notes prohibition on subverting anti-SLAPP by later amendments
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does amending supersede the original for mootness purposes? | Amended complaint supersedes, removing protected-activity basis. | Anti-SLAPP should still be reviewable if tied to prior pleading. | Yes; amended supersedes and moots the motion. |
| Can mootness be reviewed on appeal despite changing trial theory? | Theory-of-trial problem; but law allows review where purely legal. | Preserves merits-focused review if appropriate. | Pure issue of law; appeal may address merits of mootness. |
| What is the proper remedy when an anti-SLAPP motion is moot due to amendment? | Trial court denial should stand? | Remedy should reflect mootness; may affirm or remand. | Vacate the anti-SLAPP order as moot; award costs to plaintiffs. |
| May a plaintiff amend to sidestep an already-filed anti-SLAPP motion? | Amendment cannot be used to subvert the anti-SLAPP process; inapplicable here since no pending motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon, 3 Cal.3d 875 (Cal. 1971) (amendments moot prior pleadings; general principle of pleading supersession)
- Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (prohibits using amendments to evade SLAPP motions)
- Salma v. Capon, 161 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (amendments after anti-SLAPP motion can be treated as moot; avoid manipulation)
- State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (amendments moot prior complaint; precedence for mootness rule)
- Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc., 122 Cal.App.4th 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (amendments can moot prior rulings on demurrers or motions to strike)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2003) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; de novo review)
- Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (protects consideration of whether claims arise from protected activity)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (protective activity and protected-activity linkage in anti-SLAPP)