Judge: Kevin A. Enright, Case: 37-2023-00010536-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  10:30:00 AM  2103 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kevin A. Enright

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other SLAPP / SLAPPback Motion Hearing 37-2023-00010536-CU-MC-CTL 151 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant's Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint (C.C.P., § 425.16) is CONTINUED to September 15, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. Parties to appear if there are problems with the proposed date and time.

The Court requests supplemental briefing, not to exceed five pages, on the issues discussed below.

- Defendant argues the first cause of action for declaratory relief arises out of Defendant's protected activity under C.C.P. §§ 425.16(e)(1) and (e)(2). Plaintiff argues this cause of action has nothing to do with Defendant's protected activity, but rather seeks a declaration of rights under the judgment in the Travelers action and concerns issues beyond those to be addressed in the Blackburn action. The Court requests supplemental briefing on whether and to what extent Plaintiff's declaratory relief cause of action presents a 'mixed cause of action,' and whether and how Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 and Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 apply.

- Plaintiff argues Defendant's motion is moot as to the second cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations because Plaintiff has dismissed this cause of action without prejudice. (ROA 25.) Defendant argues the Court retains jurisdiction to consider this cause of action in order to determine an award of attorneys' fees, and a decision on Defendant's entire motion to strike is required. The Court requests supplemental briefing on whether the Court has authority to rule on the merits of this motion as to the second cause of action or must retain jurisdiction to rule on this cause of action upon a separate motion for attorneys' fees. (See Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 764, 774-776; Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 211, 218.) The parties' supplemental briefs are simultaneously due five court days before the next hearing.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2999958