TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Jessica Luchenta, and Robert Weiler’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at hearing for setting only.

Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Jessica Luchenta, and Robert Weiler to give notice. 

REASONING

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Jessica Luchenta, and Robert Weiler (“Defendants”)’s demurrer to the four causes of action alleged in Plaintiff Jordanne Ho-Shue (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the demurrer.

On October 20, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ and Defendant Sarah Robertson (“Robertson”)’s special motions to strike every cause of action allege in Plaintiff’s complaint, and on October 27, 2023, Robertson filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s ruling denying her special motion to strike. On February 21, 2024, Robertson filed a Notice of Settlement of Appeal, stating therein that she had settled the appeal filed on October 27, 2023, but the settlement was contingent on the grant of a good faith settlement determination by this Court, which is set for hearing on May 22, 2024, and if the motion is denied, the settlement is void, such that Robertson has not yet filed a dismissal of her appeal.

It is axiomatic that an appeal from an order denying a special motion to strike automatically stays all further proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 194.) While Defendants have not appealed the Court’s ruling denying the special motion to strike, and Robertson’s appeal of the denial may ultimately be resolved by settlement and dismissal of the appeal, the Court finds it prudent to defer ruling on Defendants’ demurrer in the interest of judicial economy. There remains a possibility that an appeal of the Court’s special motion to strike ruling may be heard and decided, and “[t]he protections afforded by the anti-SLAPP statute against the harassment and burdens of litigation are in large measure lost if the petitioner is forced to litigate a case to its conclusion before obtaining a definitive judgment through the appellate process.” (Id. at p. 193.) More specifically, if the Court were to hear Defendants’ demurrer at this juncture and sustain the demurrer with leave to amend, thereby allowing Plaintiff to file an amended pleading before the resolution of Robertson’s appeal, Robertson would be faced with the need to analyze a new pleading and determine a litigation strategy for new allegations while her appeal is pending. Accordingly, Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Jessica Luchenta, and Robert Weiler’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at hearing an for setting only.