Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00029185-CU-DF-NC, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Defamation Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00029185-CU-DF-NC SETTOON VS MORRIS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/12/2023

Defendant Kimberly Spada Morris ('Defendant')'s special motion to strike Plaintiff Natalie Alexandra Settoon ('Plaintiff')'s Complaint is taken off calendar.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff requested, and the court entered, an order dismissing Defendant from this action without prejudice. See ROA No. 41. Once a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the court is deprived 'of both subject matter and personal jurisdiction in that case, except for the limited purpose of awarding costs and statutory attorney fees.' Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 255, 261. Accordingly, Plaintiff's dismissal of Defendant from this action divests this court of jurisdiction to reach the motion's merits. On that basis, the court must take this matter off calendar.

The court retains jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs in this matter. This includes, potentially, the attorney's fees and costs incurred in conjunction with the motion. See Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1447, 1456 ('Numerous courts have agreed . . . that a trial court retains jurisdiction to award attorney fees pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1) after a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its complaint while a special motion to strike is pending.'). However, the present motion is no longer the procedurally appropriate vehicle to determine Defendant's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs given the jurisdictional issue identified above. This does not mean that Defendant is without a remedy. Nor does it mean that the court cannot ultimately determine whether Defendant would have prevailed on the challenged causes of action. The proper procedure for doing so, however, is no longer in the context of a special motion to strike. Defendant must instead file and serve a motion for attorney's fees and costs and, if necessary, a memorandum of costs. See Catlin Ins. Co., Inc.

v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc. (2022) 73 Cal. App. 5th 764, 784. The court will then address the motion's merits and determine whether Defendant would have prevailed on the challenged claims. This will also give Plaintiff an opportunity to file a motion to strike or tax costs to the extent Defendant seeks costs in this matter. See Tourgeman, 222 Cal. App. 4th at 1457; Liu v. Moore (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 745, 752; Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 211, 218; Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 901, 919.

In light of the foregoing, the court takes this matter off calendar. This Order is without prejudice to Defendant filing a motion for attorney's fees and costs in the normal course.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, January 5, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 5, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035182 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SETTOON VS MORRIS [IMAGED]  37-2023-00029185-CU-DF-NC is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035182