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 withYu 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.
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 withYu 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.