Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 408
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC and Vertical Media Group, Inc.) sued defendants (Morris Cerullo World Evangelism and Roger Artz) over events tied to a ground sublease and an allegedly fraudulent settlement of an unlawful detainer action.
- Plaintiffs filed multiple complaints; the third amended complaint repeated some earlier causes of action (e.g., breach of written contract, breach of implied covenant) and added new causes of action (quantum meruit, promissory estoppel).
- Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike within 60 days of service of the third amended complaint but not within 60 days of the original complaints.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely, noting extensive prior litigation and discovery and that the anti-SLAPP statute is intended for early-stage resolution.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed in part: it held a defendant may move as to new causes of action in an amended complaint but not as to causes of action that appeared in earlier complaints unless the trial court permits a late filing under section 425.16(f).
- The California Supreme Court granted review limited to the timing question and affirmed the Court of Appeal: a defendant must move within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that pleads the cause of action, subject to the trial court’s discretion under section 425.16(f) to allow a later motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anti-SLAPP motion filed within 60 days of an amended complaint can target causes of action that were already pleaded in earlier complaints | Motion is untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of the earlier complaints | Motion is timely because it was filed within 60 days of the operative (amended) complaint | A defendant must file within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that pleads that cause of action, but the trial court may permit a later filing under §425.16(f) |
| Whether an anti-SLAPP motion may be filed as of right against new causes of action in an amended complaint | Plaintiffs: allowing late challenges would encourage delay and abuse | Defendants: permitting only new-claim challenges reduces efficiency because discovery stays and appeals freeze proceedings | The court allows anti-SLAPP motions as of right for new causes of action first pleaded in an amended complaint, but not for previously pleaded causes of action (subject to court’s discretionary allowance of late motions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (describes anti-SLAPP summary-judgment-like two-step procedure)
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (explains anti-SLAPP purpose to end meritless suits early and stay/appeal effects)
- Lam v. Ngo, 91 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (held anti-SLAPP motion may follow an amended complaint when new protected claims are added)
- Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 103 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (held broadly that filing within 60 days of amended complaint was timely even if earlier opportunities existed; disapproved here to the extent inconsistent)
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp., 239 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (criticized automatic reopening of anti-SLAPP timing for amended complaints as enabling strategic delay)
- Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg, 166 Cal.App.4th 772 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizes potential for anti-SLAPP procedures to be abused for delay)