By Thomas R. BurkeIn August 2016, the California Supreme Court decided how the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. C.C.P. § 425.16 et seq., operates in “mixed-conduct” situations—i.e., where a plaintiff’s cause of action combines allegations about a defendant that the statute protects along with allegations of unprotected activity. Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376 (2016). California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides that “[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech … shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines … there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
Dr. Bonni argued that where, as here, the anti-SLAPP motion was filed by the defendant to strike the entire cause of action, the court should look to the “gravamen” or “principal thrust” of the cause of action. The defendant hospitals countered that the court under Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 should separately analyze each of the acts forming the basis for the cause of action to determine whether the activity is subject to anti-SLAPP protections. In response, the Court described the cause of action as “mixed” where some allegations constituted protected activity and others did not.
If not, the claim is stricken. Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376, 396 (2016). The anti-SLAPP statute is to be “construed broadly.”
Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino, 17 Cal. App. 5th 352, 362 (2017).In Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376 (2016), the California Supreme Court unanimously determined that an anti-SLAPP motion is available against portions of causes of action that infringe on the defendant’s constitutionally protected petitioning or free-speech activities. Although Baral primarily focused on how the anti-SLAPP statute applied to “mixed” claims (involving conduct by the defendant that was both protected and unprotected by the statute), the court’s unanimous opinion broadly addressed how the anti-SLAPP statute applies when multiple claims are alleged within a single cause of action.
The Sheley court granted the appellants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike specific allegations in each of the remaining causes of action because it concluded some of those allegations arose out of a protected activity and respondent had failed to factually substantiate those allegations. In doing so, the Court relied on the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396. Baral addressed a split amongst the Courts of Appeal regarding the manner in which “mixed claims” (claims that contain both allegations based on protected activity and allegations based on unprotected activity) should be addressed on an anti-SLAPP motion.
Id. at 1294.After years of conflicting appellate court rulings, in Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376 (2016), the California Supreme Court resolved how the anti-SLAPP statute applies in “mixed conduct” situations—where a portion of a cause of action involved both conduct that was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute and conduct that was unprotected. The Supreme Court in Baral unanimously determined that an anti-SLAPP motion is available against portions of causes of action that infringe on the defendant’s constitutionally protected petitioning or free-speech activities.
In Baral v. Schnitt (August 1, 2016), the California Supreme Court answered the question of how a special motion to strike under CCP Sec. 425.
Whereas courts previously could deny an anti-SLAPP motion by finding that a cause of action is supported by allegations of unprotected activity, courts now must set aside the unprotected activity in its initial analysis and address the merits relating to the protected activity head on. The California Supreme Court resolved a decade-long conflict among lower appellate courts in its watershed opinion Baral v. Schnitt, Case No. S225090, 2016 WL 4074081, *1 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug. 1, 2016). Now, courts must allow a special motion to strike under California Civil Code Section 425.