California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from 1550 Laurel Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 28 Cal.App.5th 1146 (Cal. App. 2018):
The absence of a statutory provision for an immediate appeal of an anti-SLAPP ruling in a limited civil case is significant for an additional reason. As the court observed in Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 977, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835 ( Grewal ): " [W]hat use is a mechanism to allow you to get out of a case early if it is undercut by an erroneous decision of the trial judge? The point of the anti-SLAPP statute is that you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights. The right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute. " ( Id . at p. 1003, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835.) Thus, without a statutory right to an immediate appeal of an anti-SLAPP ruling, any right to bring an anti-SLAPP motion in a limited civil case would be of limited utility. The fact that section 425.16, subdivision (i ) and section 904.2 do not provide for an early appeal of an anti-SLAPP ruling in a limited civil case reflects that anti-SLAPP
[239 Cal.Rptr.3d 748]
motions may not be brought in such cases.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.