Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. 05-01937-JF

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 9/20/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JANET SIMPSON,

 Defendant.

Case Number 05-01937-JF

ORDER1 GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

[Docket No. 14]

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Defendant Janet Simpson (“Simpson”) moves to strike the First, Second, Third, and

Fourth Causes of Action of the Complaint filed by Richard Lytel (“Lytel”), to the extent that they

are based upon statements made by Simpson to the California Department of Fair Employment

and Housing (“DFEH”). Simpson argues that her statements to the DFEH were made in

furtherance of her rights of petition and free speech and therefore fall within the protection of

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 63 Filed 09/20/05 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

 The purpose of § 425.16 is to “‘allow early dismissal of meritless first amendment cases

aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-consuming litigation.’” Verizon Del., Inc. v.

Covad Communications Co., 377 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Vess v. Ciba-Geigy

Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1109 (9th Cir. 2003)). These lawsuits often are referred to as

“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” or “SLAPP suits,” such that § 425.16 has

come to be known as the “anti-SLAPP statute.” See, e.g., Vess, 317 F.3d at 1109. 

2

Case No. 05-01937-JF

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFEX1)

California Civil Procedure Code Section 425.16.2 In his opposition, Lytel responds that “it is

undisputed that any statements made by Simpson to the DFEH are privileged and, as such, they

are not the subject of any allegation in the complaint.” Opp. at 3. Counsel for Lytel reiterated

this position to the Court at the hearing on September 9, 2005. Given Lytel’s agreement that any

statements made by Simpson to the DFEH are privileged, the Court will grant Simpson’s motion

to strike Lytel’s claims for relief to the extent that they are based upon statements made by

Simpson to the DFEH. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

DATED: September 19, 2005

 /s/ electronic signature authorized 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 63 Filed 09/20/05 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

Case No. 05-01937-JF

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff

eck@kastnerbanchero.com

slh@kastnerbanchero.com

fh@kastnerbanchero.com

ln@kastnerbanchero.com

mbisbee@ropers.com

jsimonson@ropers.com

pdunn@ropers.com

knguyen@ropers.com

Counsel for Defendant

jfr@olimpia-whelan-lively.com

Counsel for Cross-Defendant

urosales@wsgr.com

ggansle@wsgr.com

lreagan@wsgr.com

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 63 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 3