Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01143/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01143-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

“SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public 1

Participation.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HASTIE, )

) 2:06-cv-1143-GEB-KJM

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

CITY OF SUSANVILLE and CHRIS )

GALLAGHER, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint under

California’s “Anti-SLAPP” statute, arguing that the Complaint 1

concerns Defendants’ exercise of free speech on a matter of public

concern. Plaintiff counters that Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion is

untimely, and therefore should be denied. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 3:12-21.)

///

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-01143-GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

DISCUSSION

Under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Defendants are

authorized to move to have a claim stricken that arises “from any act

of [Defendants] in furtherance of [Defendants’] right of petition or

free speech under the United States or California Constitution in

connection with a public issue . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

425.16(f). Anti-SLAPP motions must be filed within sixty days of

service of the complaint. Id. If filed after sixty days, the motion

may only be heard in the discretion of the court. Id.; see Olsen v.

Harbison, 134 Cal. App. 4th 278, 287 (2005) (noting that the sixty-day

filing deadline is intended to “require presentation and resolution of

the [A]nti-SLAPP claim at the outset of the litigation before the

parties have undertaken the expenses of litigation that begin to

accrue after the pleading stage of the lawsuit”).

Defendants ask that their Anti-SLAPP motion be allowed even

though it was filed fourteen months after the service of the

Complaint. Defendants assert that Plaintiff initially agreed to

explore settlement options, but then failed to respond to Defendants’

request for a settlement demand for several months. (Defs.’ Reply at

2:7-13.) But this explanation fails to sufficiently explain

Defendants’ fourteen-month delay in filing their motion. Defendants

also argue that “it was not clear until [they took] Plaintiff’s

deposition [that all] claims in the Complaint were subject to [their

motion].” (Id. at 3:13-14.) However, even after taking Plaintiff’s

deposition on April 10, 2007, Defendants did not file their motion

until July 5, 2007, well more than sixty days after Plaintiff’s

deposition was taken(Decl. Deschler, Exh. C).

Case 2:06-cv-01143-GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Since Defendants have not shown sufficient justification for

their untimely Anti-SLAPP motion, the motion is denied. 

ATTORNEY’s FEES

The Anti-SLAPP statute permits an award of attorney’s fees

and costs to a prevailing plaintiff “[i]f the court finds that a

special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause

unnecessary delay . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c). Plaintiff

has not shown that Defendants’ motion was frivolous or solely intended

to cause delay. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover

attorney’s fees and costs incurred while litigating this motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01143-GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3