Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV21501, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 18, 2023

Case Name: Doe v. Underwood, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV46709

Matter: Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiff John Doe

Responding Party: Defendant Madylin Ann-Michel Sweeten

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff John Doe filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Brittany Underwood, Katie Jo Mcclain, Madylin Ann-Michel Sweeten, Natasha Bernard, Richard Charles Hearst, Sarah Hester, Aaron Jaeger, and Janice Gillock for (1) invasion of privacy, (2) defamation, (3) intentional interference with business relations, (4) negligent interference with business relationships, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

On April 4, 2023, the Court entered an order (1) partly granting Defendant Sweeten’s anti-SLAPP motion as to the SAC and (2) sustaining her demurrer as to the remainder of the SAC, without leave to amend.  In ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion, the Court noted, “Plaintiff argues that the Motion has been waived because Defendant’s prior anti-SLAPP motion directed at the identical FAC was not filed in a timely fashion.  This argument is rejected because no law was cited.”

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s anti-SLAPP ruling.  Plaintiff now cites authority that he claims supports the notion that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been denied as late.  Specifically, Plaintiff cites Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, 643-45 and Royal Coach Tours, Inc. v. Miletak, No. H050167, at *3-4 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2023).

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) provides, “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

Here, Plaintiff fails to cite new law that could not have been presented before.  Indeed, the anti-SLAPP ruling was issued on April 4, 2023, while Newport Harbor is an appellate ruling from 2018.  Further, Royal Coach cannot be cited as an unpublished decision.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a).)

The Court also notes that it has discretion to allow a late anti-SLAPP motion.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(f).)  In any case, there is no basis to deem the subject anti-SLAPP motion late to the extent (1) Defendant was only served with the FAC in August 2022; (2) Defendant filed an initial anti-SLAPP motion to the FAC in September 2022 that was set for October 20, 2022; (3) the Court then allowed leave to amend such that the SAC was filed on October 11, 2022, before the initial anti-SLAPP hearing; and (4) the subject anti-SLAPP motion was then promptly reasserted with respect to the SAC on November 1, 2022.  

For these reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.