Defendant Day appeals the trial court's denial of her Special Motion to Strike as a SLAPP
geocities.com
and here's why:
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 19.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
"Mary Day, appellant, submits the following Rule 19.5 Statement:
1. NATURE OF CASE - Describe the action as presented in the trial court including the identity of each party, the facts and theories alleged, and the relief sought:
There are currently four Plaintiffs; two corporate (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., and Varian Semiconductors, Inc.) and two individuals who are employed as managers by the corporate Plaintiffs (Susan Felch and George Zdasiuk). They are all represented by the same law firm, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.) at 1020 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
Randall M. Widmann, (State Bar No. 73154), of the Law Offices Of Randall M. Widmann, 550 Hamilton Ave. Suite 201, Palo Alto, CA 94301 represents Defendant, Mary E. Day. She is being sued as DOE 1. She was added as a Defendant when Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint more than six months after the original Complaint had been filed.
Michelangelo Delfino is represented by Glynn P. Falcon (State Bar No. 61078), 2501 Park Boulevard, Suite 205, Palo Alto, CA 94306, (650) 323-0333. Dr. Delfino was the only "original" Defendant.
The current Third Amended Complaint contains 39 pages of charging allegations, plus references to an additional 156 pages of unspecified and uncorrelated exhibits from Internet postings. Their Third Amended Complaint contains seven separate causes of action set forth in 107 numbered paragraphs of charging allegations. Many of these numbered paragraphs (such as ¶ 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 42, and 43) contain numerous subparagraphs which, when added to the 107 numbered paragraphs, results in another 92 additional paragraphs of factual allegations, for a total of 199 paragraphs of factual allegations in the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint, on its face, alleges conduct that spans a period of over 6 years, between 1994 (¶ 14) and July 2000.
Their claims involve issues of free speech, First Amendment rights, cyber libel, unfair business competition and the wrongful use of the Internet service provider s (Yahoo!) Public forum bulletin boards.
Defendant, Mary Day, contends that the complaint is a strategic lawsuit against public participation ("SLAPP") and made a special motion to strike the complaint.
(a) Decision of the trial court - - State whether the case was decided after trial or prior to trial, and describe the dispositive judgment or order and its date. Attach a copy of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.
This appeal is taken from the denial of Defendant s special motion to strike, made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. The minute order from the trial court reads:
"Minute Order After Proceedings on October 26, 2000. The Demurrers to the 7th cause of action is (sic) sustained with leave to amend. The demurrers are overruled in all other respects. The motion to strike is denied. The Motions to Strike A (sic) SLAPP suit are denied." Dated November 1, 2000. [copy attached]. [italics indicate the portion of the decision that has been appealed]
(b) State the date of service of any notice of entry of judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.
The minute order appealed from is dated November 1, 2000 and was served on the parties by the court via the mail.
(c) Identify all parties to the appeal and the attorney(s) who represent them, including State Bar numbers. Indicate which party or parties are appealing.
Defendant, Mary E. Day, is appealing the denial of her special motion to strike the SLAPP suit and is represented by Randall Widmann (SB# 73154).
Defendant, Michelangelo Delfino, has previously appealed the denial of his special motion to strike the SLAPP suit. Glynn Falcon (SB# 61078) represents him for that appeal.
All Plaintiffs are parties to the appeal, and they are all represented by the Orrick law firm, the lead attorney being Lynn C. Hermle (SB# 99779).
(d) Does the judgment or order dispose of the entire case? If not, identify the issues remaining to be decided in the trial court.
Yes, if Defendant's motion is granted. If the special motion to strike is granted, the Plaintiffs case is ended. However, the trial court denied the motion and seeks to have the matter tried and the earliest possible date. A writ of supersedas was filed by Defendant, Michelangelo Delfino, with this court, which was denied. A petition for review of that denial is concurrently pending before the California Supreme Court.
2. ISSUES ON APPEAL - Describe the issue or issues including the applicable standard of review which appellant/cross-appellant contemplates raising in this appeal.
The issue(s) is whether or not the complaint as it has been brought against Defendant, Mary Day, should be stricken under California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16.
a) Appealability - State the authority for this appeal. (e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 904.1(a); California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1294(a); Prob. Code Sec. 1300(a).) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §904(a)(13) the denial of a special motion to strike the complaint made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 is directly appealable by virtue of California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16(j).
3. Describe any related prior appeal or petition for review.
As set forth above, Defendant, Michelangelo Delfino, has filed a writ with the California Supreme Court as to the denial of his petition for writ of supersedas seeking to enforce the automatic stay of proceeding in the trial court while the appeal is pending.
While this case was with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, an appeal was taken by Michelangelo Delfino and by Mary Day to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal seeking to dissolve the preliminary injunction entered by the federal trial court prior to its remand of the remaining state law claims back to the Superior Court. The Ninth Circuit held that the preliminary injunction was dissolved. Plaintiffs did not seek review with the U.S. Supreme Court. That matter is now final, and the federal courts no longer have any jurisdiction in the case.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: November 30, 2000.
RANDALL M. WIDMANN
Attorney for Defendant, Mary Day"
geocities.com |
