Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01067, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01067    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO DISMISS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ANALYSIS:

On September 21, 2023, this Court granted an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Harvey Weinstein (“Weinstein”) pertaining to the Complaint of Marisa Falero (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges several well-known entertainment production companies and personalities incorporated details of her life into several dozen motion pictures and television shows over the period of several decades without her permission. By virtue of granting the anti-SLAPP motion, the Court struck all causes of action alleged against Weinstein.

On September 26, 2023, Weinstein filed a motion for dismissal from this action. Plaintiff opposes the motion and Weinstein replies.  

California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 916 provides in relevant part, “[T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”

A matter is embraced in or affected by the appealed judgment or order within the meaning of C.C.P. § 916(a) only if trial court proceedings on the matter would affect the effectiveness of the appeal. (Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1383.)

Further, the California Supreme Court has explicitly held that an appeal from an order granting or denying an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays all further trial court proceedings, including trial, on the merits of the causes of action targeted by the motion. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191-192.)

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal of the Court’s ruling in the anti-SLAPP motion. Any order from the Court concerning dismissal of Weinstein from the case would be an order affecting the efficacy of Plaintiff’s appeal. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction until receipt of remittitur. As such, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Harvey Weinstein’s Motion to Dismiss came on regularly for hearing on November 3, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

DATE:  November 3, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles