Cent. Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health, No. A148742 (D1d2 Jan. 9, 2018)
The complaint in this case was crappy. So crappy it wouldn’t hold up to a demurrer. Practically the only thing it was specific about was that it disclaimed being directed at any anti-SLAPP-worthy activity. But defendant filed both a demurrer and an anti-SLAPP motion anyway. The demurrer was granted, with leave. But the trial court denied the anti-SLAPP without prejudice, expressly stating that Defendant could bring a new anti-SLAPP against a better fleshed out complaint, if merited. Defendant, however, didn’t wait to SLAPP the new complaint. Instead, it took an appeal, as it could as a matter of right.
The Court of Appeal isn’t pleased. Defendant managed to waste 22 months with a stupid appeal of an anti-SLAPP motion it could have more meaningfully directed to a better complaint. Moreover, the complaint here, crappy as it was, did not state claims that arose from protected conduct. It indeed disclaimed that it did. So this appeal was a worthless waste of time. But the Court here declines to award any monetary sanctions and finds it sufficient to browbeat Defendant, mostly because Plaintiff didn’t really ask for them.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment