Varian v. Delfino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 is a California Supreme Court opinion by then-Associate Justice Janice R. Brown interpreting the state's SLAPP statute. Specifically, the case holds that an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all trial court proceedings: "The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion...."you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights.""

In this case involving the arcana of appellate procedure, Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day filed an appeal from a $775,000 defamation judgment for postings they made on their Website and on various Internet message boards criticizing their former employer, Varian Medical Systems Inc., and two of its senior executives, George A. Zdasiuk and Susan B. Felch.

Prior to trial, Delfino and Day had filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion and Delfino and Day appealed from that denial, but the trial court and California Court of Appeal refused to stay the trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 916 while the anti-SLAPP appeal was pending. At the conclusion of the trial, the anti-SLAPP appeal was dismissed as moot.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conduct the trial because of Delfino and Days' pending appeal from the denial of their anti-SLAPP motion. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the jurisdictional question: Does an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute effect an automatic stay of the trial court proceedings?

The Supreme Court held by a 7-0 vote that under Code of Civil Procedure section 916, "all of the matters on trial were embraced in and affected by defendants' appeal from the denial of that motion and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those matters." By a 6-1 vote, Chief Justice Ronald M. George dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment, finding that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court rendered the resulting trial completely void.

Amicus curiae briefs in support of Delfino and Day were filed by the Office of the Attorney General, the California Newspaper Association with the Los Angeles Times, Oakland Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle, and the ACLU.