Lexplug logoLexplug

West v. Arent Fox LLP

California Court of Appeal
237 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An order granting or denying a special motion to strike a "SLAPPback" cause of action, as defined by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.18, is not directly appealable; the exclusive remedy for appellate review is a petition for a peremptory writ filed within 20 days of notice of the order.


Facts:

  • Val West held a durable power of attorney for her mother, a resident at the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging (the Home), and became involved in disagreements over her mother's care.
  • The Home and its executive director, Nadine Roisman, represented by the law firm Arent Fox LLP, filed a civil lawsuit against West and her friend, David Dizenfeld, alleging trespass, harassment, and defamation.
  • In that initial lawsuit, West and Dizenfeld successfully moved to strike the defamation cause of action under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16).
  • Subsequently, West and Dizenfeld filed a new lawsuit against Arent Fox, the Home, and Roisman.
  • West's new complaint included causes of action for "antiSLAPPback" and malicious prosecution, arising from the prior lawsuit that Arent Fox had filed on behalf of the Home.

Procedural Posture:

  • Val West and David Dizenfeld sued Arent Fox LLP and others in the Los Angeles Superior Court (trial court).
  • Arent Fox filed a special motion to strike the first and second causes of action against it, which the trial court initially denied.
  • Arent Fox, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to grant the motion.
  • The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ, ordering the trial court to either grant Arent Fox's motion or show cause why it should not.
  • In response to the writ, the trial court vacated its prior order and entered a new order granting Arent Fox's motion to strike the two causes of action.
  • West, as appellant, then filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal, seeking review of the trial court's order granting the motion to strike.

Locked

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 an appellate court have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from a trial court's order granting a special motion to strike a "SLAPPback" cause of action under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.18?


Opinions:

Majority - Goodman, J.

No. An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order granting a motion to strike a SLAPPback claim because the legislature has established a specific and exclusive procedure for reviewing such orders. The court reasoned that while motions to strike both standard SLAPP claims and SLAPPback claims are brought "pursuant to Section 425.16," the legislature enacted § 425.18 to create a distinct set of rules for the SLAPPback subset. Section 425.18(c) expressly removes the right to a direct appeal that is normally available for anti-SLAPP motions under § 904.1(a)(13). Instead, § 425.18(g) provides that the sole remedy for a party aggrieved by a ruling on a SLAPPback motion is to petition for a peremptory writ within 20 days. Because West failed to file a timely writ petition and instead filed a notice of appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies a critical procedural distinction between regular anti-SLAPP motions and "SLAPPback" motions, confirming that the latter are subject to a unique and exclusive appellate review process. The ruling serves as a strong cautionary tale for litigants, emphasizing that failure to correctly identify a claim as a SLAPPback and follow the mandated writ procedure of § 425.18 results in the complete forfeiture of the right to appellate review. The case underscores the principle of statutory interpretation where a specific statute (§ 425.18) governing a particular subject matter overrides a more general one (§ 425.16), thereby shaping litigation strategy in this specialized area of law.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: West v. Arent Fox LLP (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"