Daily Blast January 5, 2017

Today, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion analyzing whether a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction may nonetheless grant an anti-SLAPP motion and award attorney’s fees and costs. In Barry v. The State Bar of California (Jan. 5, 2017, S214058) __Cal.5th__, the Supreme Court held that courts have “the power to resolve an anti-SLAPP motion on jurisdictional grounds,” and grant the resultant attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing defendant. (Slip opn., p. 13.)

Following discipline by the State Bar of California, the plaintiff sued the State Bar in superior court seeking to dismiss the disciplinary charges. The plaintiff asserted various causes of action alleging the State Bar’s actions were retaliatory and discriminatory. (Slip opn., p. 4.) The State Bar filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike. (Ibid.) The court granted the State Bar’s motion, reasoning in pertinent part that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits because the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over matters involving attorney discipline. Accordingly, the court awarded the State Bar its attorney’s fees. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that because the superior court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims, it also lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the anti-SLAPP motion or award the corresponding attorney’s fees. (Id. at pp. 5-6.)

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “[a] court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims has the power to resolve an anti-SLAPP motion on jurisdictional grounds.” (Slip opn., p. 13.) The court reasoned that “while a ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion may involve a determination of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, it may in other cases involve a determination that the plaintiff’s claim fails for another, non-merits-based reason.” (Id. at p. 7.) Furthermore, a contrary rule would deprive defendants of the anti-SLAPP statute’s procedural protections, which are not available on a demurrer. (Id. at p. 12.) Thus, the Supreme Court held that because the superior court had the power to resolve the anti-SLAPP motion, it also had the power to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing defendant. (Id. at p. 13.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate