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 tens of thousands of postings they made on their Website and on various Internet message boards criticizing their former employer, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., two of its senior executives, George A. Zdasiuk and Susan B. Felch, and Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc.

Prior to the Santa Clara County Superior Court trial in the fall of 2001, Delfino and Day had filed a special motion to strike Varian's 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 Courts 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 a seven week jury trial in which Judge Jack Komar presided, 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. In so doing the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for a new trial. In March 2006, on the eve of a second trial, the case settled amicably after which Delfino and Day went on to write non-fiction books: Cancer: We Live and Die by radiation, Death Penalty USA 2005 - 2006, and Death Penalty USA 2003 - 2004.

Amicus curiae briefs in support of Delfino and Day were filed by the Office of the Attorney General, the California Newspaper Publishers Association with the Los Angeles Times, Oakland Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle, and the ACLU. All four Varian plaintiffs were represented by the Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP and the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

[edit] Related Law

During the course of the litigation, in 2003, the FBI arrested and the U.S. Attorney prosecuted Cameron A. Moore, an Agilent Technologies, Inc. employee for e-mailing death threats to Delfino and Day's home using Agilent's chattel. Delfino and Day litigated against Moore and following a trial in April 2005 were awarded $1.1 million in both compensatory and punitive damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by Moore. The judgment against Moore was affirmed on appeal. These events culminated in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, cert. denied (2007) 128 S.Ct. 98, a first impression case that extends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunity to all employers.