Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03077/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER N.G. SCHWARTZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv3077-GPC(WVG)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

ADVANCE DATE OF

DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP

MOTION AND GRANTING AN 

ORDER TO STAY ALL

DISCOVERY 

[Dkt. No. 22.]

vs.

AT THE COVE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION, also known as “AT

THE COVE” HOMEOWNERS’

ASSOCIATION, REZA PAYDAR,

LORI BAKER, ANDERS DALE and

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

On March 12, 2013, Defendants filed an ex parte motion to advance the date of

Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and for an order to stay all discovery. (Dkt. No. 22.) 

Plaintiff filed a response on the same day. (Dkt. No. 23.) A hearing is currently set 

for June 14, 2013. After a review of the papers and applicable law, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the date of Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion

and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to stay all discovery.

Discussion

Defendants seek to advance the hearing date on their motion to strike pursuant

to California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16(f) and a motion for an order staying

discovery under California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16(g). 

- 1 - [12cv3077-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:12-cv-03077-GPC-JMA Document 27 Filed 03/14/13 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

Plaintiff states he does not oppose the hearing date of June 14, 2013. He asserts

that he is still reviewing Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and has not yet determined

whether he will seek an order allowing discovery in connection with opposing the

motion. At this time, he is amenable to a stay of discovery; however, he seeks the

option to open discovery if needed. 

California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16(f) & (g) provide:

(f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the

complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it

deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court

for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion

unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.

(g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the

filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of

discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling

on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown,

may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this

subdivision.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f) & (g).

As to shortening the time to hold a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion, due to the

state of the docket, the Court cannot hear Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion within 30

days of filing the motion, and therefore, the motion hearing date shall remain on June

14, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

As to a stay of discovery, it is a long-recognized principle that federal courts

sitting in diversity “apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.” Hanna v.

Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965). The Ninth Circuit has held that California

Procedure Code section 425.16(f) and (g) cannot apply in federal court. Metabolife

Internat’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 846 (9th Cir. 2001). The court explained that

the discovery-limiting aspects of 425.15(f) and (g) collide with the discovery-allowing 1

aspects of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Id. 

However, since Metabolife, courts have recognized the distinction between an

In Metabolife, the court addressed the provision, in section 415.16(f), that an 1

anti-SLAPP motion may be filed within sixty days of the filing of the complaint which

prevents a plaintiff from conducting discovery. 

- 2 - [12cv3077-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:12-cv-03077-GPC-JMA Document 27 Filed 03/14/13 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

anti-SLAPP motion that is in the nature of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and one

that presents issues of fact, akin to a Rule 56 summary judgment motion, for purposes

of determining whether the discovery stay applies. One court described the general

rule fromMetabolife asfollows: “the discovery-limiting provisions of[the anti SLAPP

statute] collide with the discovery-permitting provisions of Rule 56, and therefore are

not available in federal court unless either (1) the factual basis of the case has been

developed through discovery . . . to the extent a motion for summary judgment would

be appropriate; (2) the parties agree that further discovery is not necessary; or (3) the

only issue presented by the motion is an issue of law and the motion is suitable for

decision as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” Aeroplate Corp. v. Arch

Ins. Co., No. 06–1099 AWI SMS, 2006 WL 3257487, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Nov.9, 2006)

(internal citations omitted, emphasis added); see also Davis v. Elec. Arts, Inc., No.

C–10–03328 RS DMR, 2011 WL 2621626, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2011).

Here, at this time, Plaintiff agrees that further discovery is not necessary. 

Accordingly, discovery will be stayed. See Aeroplate Corp., 2006 WL 3257487, at *9.

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ ex parte application to

advance the date of their anti-SLAPP motion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to stay

discovery pending resolution of the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants may, on noticed

motion and for good cause, move before the Magistrate Judge for specific discovery

for purposes of filing an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [12cv3077-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:12-cv-03077-GPC-JMA Document 27 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3 of 3