Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, No. S239777 (Cal. Mar. 21, 2018)
At the end of 2016, the Court of Appeal held that the 60-day clock to file an anti-SLAPP motion runs from the time in which a cause of action first appears in an amended complaint. So you get 60 days from the original complaint, and then 60 more days to bring a motion to challenge a new cause of action in an amended complaint, but you don’t get 60 more days to challenge a cause of action that appeared before and is just being re-pleaded in an amended complaint. And then the whole thing is subject to the court’s discretion to extend the time under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(f).
That holding was somewhat in tension with Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 103 Cal. App. 4th 298 (2002), which suggested at least in passing that the 60-day clock started anew on every claim upon an amendment. The Supreme Court granted review, likely to resolve the apparent split. And now, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Chin, it affirms the Court of Appeal. Basically for the same reasons that the Court of Appeal ruled as it did.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment