Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV31574, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Moving Defendant Triller Platform Co. f/k/a Triller Inc.’s untimely special motion to strike the first amended complaint of Plaintiff Thorsten D. Meier is denied.

Defendant Triller Platform Co. f/k/a Triller Inc.’s (“Triller”) (“Moving Defendant”) moves to strike the 1st and 14th causes of action in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Thorsten D. Meier (“Meier”) (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that portions of Plaintiff’s FAC arise from the protected activity specifically delineated under the Anti-SLAPP Statute: “any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.” (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §425.16(e)(2).)

C.C.P. §4.25.16(f) provides: “The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.” (C.C.P. §4.25.16(f).)

“In other words, the defendant is only entitled to ‘file[ ]’ such a motion within 60 days of service; thereafter filing may be allowed, or not, in the trial court’s discretion. This language might be readily understood to mean that a trial court need not entertain, but can instead refuse to hear, a motion filed outside the 60 days.” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1186.) Indeed, some courts have suggested that this provision empowers a trial court to require advance leave before the defendant is permitted to file such a motion. (See Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 775 [“A party may not file an anti–SLAPP motion more than 60 days after the filing of the complaint, unless the trial court affirmatively exercises its discretion to allow a late filing.”]; Olsen v. Harbison (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 278, 286 [“The statute expressly provides that a late anti-SLAPP motion shall not be filed unless the court affirmatively exercises discretion to permit it to be filed.”]; Kunysz v. Sandler (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1543 [citing failure to seek leave as one of several defects]; South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 634, 653, 654 [implying that failure to seek leave could be fatal, but finding motion there timely]; but see Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684 [failure to seek leave not fatal if court elects to entertain late motion].)

The operative FAC was filed and served on January 6, 2025. Moving Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion was untimely filed on March 11, 2025, without this Court’s permission. Pursuant to C.C.P. §4.25.16(f), Moving Defendant’s motion should have been filed on or before March 7, 2025.

Subject to the trial court’s discretion under C.C.P. §425.16(f) to permit late filing, a defendant must move to strike a claim within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action. Defendant cannot use the fact that plaintiff filed an amended complaint to attack claims that appeared in a prior complaint. The anti-SLAPP statute “is not a vehicle for a defendant to obtain a dismissal of claims in the middle of litigation; it is a procedural device to prevent costly, unmeritorious litigation at the initiation of the lawsuit.” (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, 645, internal quotes omitted [“To minimize this problem, section 425.16, subdivision (f), should be interpreted to permit an anti-SLAPP motion against an amended complaint if it could not have been brought earlier, but to prohibit belated motions that could have been brought earlier (subject to the trial court's discretion to permit a late motion). This interpretation maximizes the possibility the anti-SLAPP statute will fulfill its purpose while reducing the potential for abuse.”]; Starview Property, LLC v. Lee (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 203, 206 [where amended complaint is based on same facts as alleged in original complaint but pleads new claims for relief, anti-SLAPP motion may be filed within 60 days of service of amended complaint if it addresses newly pled claims].)

Here, the 1st cause of action appeared in the initial complaint, while the 14th cause of action first appeared in the FAC. The Court does not exercise its discretion to consider the instant Anti-SLAPP; assuming it did, it would be improper to consider Moving Defendant’s request to strike the 1st cause of action because there was an earlier opportunity to strike the cause of action. (Starview Property, LLC, 41 Cal.App.5th at pg. 206.)

Moving Defendant further does not demonstrate good cause for not filing the instant motion earlier; there is a difference between a congested calendar and not being able to reserve and earlier hearing date, and what happened here, which was a late-filed motion.

Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendant’s special motion to strike is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court