Mary, wow, that's another interesting appeal. To summarize: 1) Your request to have your lawsuit tossed out via the anti-SLAPP statute failed, so you appealed, 2) The court did not stay your trial until the appeal was heard and you subsequently were found liable for defamation, and 3) The court ruled your appeal as moot because of the verdict against you (i.e. no sense for the plaintiff to show they have a likelihood of prevailing at trial once they've already prevailed). You are arguing: 1) by not immediately staying trial, the court acted contrary to anti-SLAPP legislation, 2) since SLAPP suits are often about overwhelming the victim with burdensome litigation costs, it makes no sense to allow a costly trial to proceed while an appeal is being considered, and 3) an appeal is designed to offer "effectual relief", which would be impossible to do after an adverse verdict from a trial, hence trials should be stayed pending the appeal.
From a theoretical point of view, you make very persuasive arguments that cut to the heart of the purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation. The problem is that, from a practical point of view, you are asking the court to admit that they themselves erred in a prior ruling. Their only face-saving out would be to simply affirm their prior ruling with no additional comment on this issue. As far as the omission of material facts, my guess is they'd just dismiss them as well saying they were immaterial to their ruling. So... looks like another interesting argument to present to the California Supreme Court... which obviously your lawyers hope to strengthen by first filing the Petition for Rehearing. By the time all this is said and done, you'll have written a sequel to your first book called "Be Careful Who You Deny". :)
- Jeff |
