228 Cal. App. 4th 1382
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- The People (Attorney General) sued McGraw-Hill and S&P alleging artificially inflated credit ratings and asserting four causes of action, including two under the California False Claims Act (CFCA).
- Defendants filed a special motion to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b), seeking early dismissal of the CFCA claims as protected petitioning/speech activity.
- The superior court denied the motion, finding the People’s enforcement action was exempt from § 425.16 under subdivision (d), which excludes enforcement actions brought by public prosecutors from the anti‑SLAPP procedure.
- Defendants appealed from the denial; the People moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing subdivision (d) removes the anti‑SLAPP framework (including the immediate‑appeal right in subdivision (i)) from prosecutor enforcement actions.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether an order that an action is exempt under § 425.16(d) is immediately appealable under § 425.16(i) and concluded it is not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order concluding a prosecutor enforcement action is exempt under § 425.16(d) is immediately appealable under § 425.16(i) | § 425.16(d) means the entire statute, including the immediate‑appeal provision in (i), does not apply to enforcement actions by public prosecutors; so no immediate appeal | § 425.16(i) plainly makes any order granting or denying a special motion to strike appealable under § 904.1, so the denial is immediately appealable | The (d) exemption removes the anti‑SLAPP procedure from prosecutor enforcement actions; (i) applies only to rulings on § 425.16(b) motions on the merits, not to (d) exemption determinations; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Supreme Court of California 2005) (explaining anti‑SLAPP purpose and need for early dismissal)
- People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 442 (Court of Appeal 2001) (discussing subdivision (d) exemption for prosecutor enforcement actions)
- City of Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment, 111 Cal.App.4th 302 (Court of Appeal 2003) (legislative history and concerns about anti‑SLAPP affecting public enforcement)
- Doe v. Luster, 145 Cal.App.4th 139 (Court of Appeal 2006) (addressing appealability questions under anti‑SLAPP provisions)
- Olson v. Corey, 35 Cal.3d 390 (Supreme Court of California 1983) (jurisdictional issues must be considered sua sponte)
- Health Labs (reiterated conclusion), 87 Cal.App.4th 442 (Court of Appeal 2001) (emphasizing public enforcement actions are not SLAPPs and should not be delayed by anti‑SLAPP appeals)