The Anti-SLAPP Appeal and the Automatic Stay
A homeowner sued a neighbor for defamation based on statements the neighbor made at a city council meeting about the homeowner's proposed construction project. The neighbor filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the homeowner had shown a probability of prevailing. The neighbor filed a timely notice of appeal. The homeowner wants to proceed with discovery and trial while the appeal is pending. The neighbor argues that the appeal automatically stays all trial court proceedings, including discovery. The homeowner contends that the trial court retains jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs. The case is in California state court.
1. Does the appeal automatically stay all trial court proceedings, including discovery? What is the scope of the stay?
Read the worked answer
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(i), an appeal from an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion does not automatically stay proceedings in the trial court. However, the trial court may stay proceedings, including discovery, pending the appeal. The statute provides that the trial court may, in its discretion, stay the action. The neighbor's argument that the appeal automatically stays all proceedings is incorrect. The homeowner may proceed with discovery and trial unless the trial court orders a stay. The trial court also retains jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party on the anti-SLAPP motion. If the neighbor prevails on appeal, the trial court may award fees. The homeowner should be aware that the appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the merits. The trial court has discretion to stay the action to avoid inconsistent rulings.
2. If the trial court denies the homeowner's request to proceed with discovery, what writ remedy might the homeowner seek?
Read the worked answer
The homeowner could seek a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to compel the trial court to vacate its stay order. However, writ relief is discretionary and the homeowner must show that the trial court abused its discretion. The homeowner must also show that there is no adequate remedy at law. Because the anti-SLAPP appeal may be resolved quickly, the homeowner may have difficulty showing that the stay will cause irreparable harm. Alternatively, the homeowner could seek a writ of supersedeas if the stay is effectively a stay of the appeal. But here the stay is of trial court proceedings, not of the appeal. The homeowner should consider whether the trial court's stay order is appealable. Generally, an order staying proceedings is not appealable. The homeowner may seek writ review, but the chances of success are low unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion.