California Appellate Tracker

Barry v. State Bar of California

January 29, 2017

Even if the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it may grant the defendant's special Anti-SLAPP motion to strike und award the defendant attorney fees, since lack of jurisdiction is one of many possible non-merits-related reasons for holding, at the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, that the plaintiff has not shown a probability of success on the merits.

Though the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it may grant the defendant’s special Anti-SLAPP motion to strike und award the defendant attorney fees. Here, an errant attorney stipulated to judgment in a State Bar disciplinary proceeding, then unsuccessfully sought review of the State Bar Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court, and finally filed a suit against the State Bar, claiming discrimination and other wrongs in her State Bar disciplinary proceedings. Though the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it properly granted the State Bar’s Anti-SLAPP motion and awarded it attorney fees. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is just one of many possible non-merits-related reasons for holding, at the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, that the plaintiff has not shown a probability of success on the merits.

California Supreme Court (Kruger, J.); January 5, 2017; 2017 WL 56342

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Barry v. State Bar of California

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson