Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michelangelo Delfino et al.
25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298, 35 Cal. 4th 180, 106 P.3d 958 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appeal from an order denying a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the causes of action affected by the motion.
Facts:
- Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day are former employees of Varian Associates.
- George Zdasiuk, a Varian executive, fired Delfino in October 1998 for allegedly harassing another employee, Susan Felch.
- Day resigned two months later in sympathy with Delfino.
- After leaving the company, Delfino and Day began posting numerous derogatory messages about Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc. (successors to Varian Associates), Zdasiuk, and Felch on the internet.
Procedural Posture:
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. and its executives (plaintiffs) sued Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day (defendants) in superior court.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court, which later remanded the state law claims back to the superior court.
- In superior court, defendants each filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16).
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motions.
- Defendants appealed the denial of their motions to the Court of Appeal and separately requested a stay of the trial, which the trial court and Court of Appeal both denied.
- While the appeal of the motion denial was pending, a full trial on the merits was conducted.
- A jury found defendants liable and awarded plaintiffs $425,000 in compensatory and $350,000 in punitive damages, and the trial court issued a permanent injunction.
- Following the entry of judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed defendants' appeal of the anti-SLAPP denial as moot.
- Defendants then appealed the final judgment itself. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that an automatic stay was not required.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review on the sole issue of whether an automatic stay applies.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the perfecting of an appeal from a trial court's order denying a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) automatically stay all further trial court proceedings on the merits of the causes of action affected by the motion?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
Yes, perfecting an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike under § 425.16 automatically stays further trial court proceedings on the merits. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 916(a), an appeal stays proceedings on matters 'embraced therein or affected thereby.' The core purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute is to protect defendants from the costs and burdens of meritless litigation aimed at chilling free speech. Allowing a trial on the merits to proceed while an appeal of the denial is pending would render that protection meaningless and make the appeal futile, as the defendant would be forced to incur the very litigation costs the statute seeks to prevent. An appellate decision reversing the denial and dismissing the cause of action would be irreconcilable with a trial court judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Because the trial proceeded in violation of the automatic stay, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent trial and judgment void.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - George, C. J.
While the trial court erred by proceeding with the trial during the pending appeal, the resulting judgment should be affirmed because the error was harmless. The California Constitution prohibits reversing a judgment for a procedural error unless it resulted in a 'miscarriage of justice.' The trial court's error in this case did not affect the fairness of the trial or its outcome. The majority's holding, which treats the error as a fundamental lack of subject matter jurisdiction requiring automatic reversal, is an overly formalistic application of the term 'jurisdiction' that ignores harmless error principles and leads to an inefficient result by wasting the resources expended on a valid trial.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical and powerful procedural safeguard for defendants utilizing the anti-SLAPP statute. By mandating an automatic stay, the Court ensures that the statute's purpose—to provide a swift and inexpensive resolution to meritless lawsuits against protected speech—is not undermined by a trial court proceeding to trial. This significantly increases the strategic leverage of an anti-SLAPP motion, as even an unsuccessful motion at the trial level can halt litigation for the duration of an appeal. However, the ruling also creates the potential for abuse by defendants who might file frivolous anti-SLAPP motions and appeals solely to delay meritorious litigation.
