|
The California Anti-SLAPP statute which allows a party to file a special motion to strike a claim that "aris[es] from any act...in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech.." does not apply when such claims are filed an arbitral forum, a California state court held.
In Sheppard v. Lightpost Museum Fund, No. H029574, 2006 WL 3824896 (Cal. App. Dec. 29, 2006), Lightpost submitted an arbitration claim against its former employee Sheppard, alleging that Sheppard violated a non-disclosure clause in the employment agreement between the parties.
Sheppard allegedly possessed confidential documents, disclosed confidential information at a previous arbitration hearing, and was writing a book that contained confidential information. In response to Lightpost's arbitration claims, Sheppard filed an Anti-SLAPP motion under CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16, which allows such motions in "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech..."
However, the Court held that § 425.16 does not authorize a court to strike claims filed in an arbitral forum and denied Sheppard's motion to strike. The Court noted that § 425.16 is expressly intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process, not of arbitration processes.
Additionally, the statute only designates complaints, cross-complaints and petitions as subject to a motion to strike. Because complaints, cross-complaints and petitions are pleadings filed in court to initiate judicial proceedings, the Court interpreted § 425.16 as applying only to pleadings filed in court and not proceedings in an arbitral forum.
Finally, the Court noted that § 425.16 imposed time limits relative to "service of the complaint," which is a term of art applicable to judicial proceedings. Because the timing restrictions only apply to actions brought in court, and not to arbitration proceedings, the Court reasoned that the legislature intended for § 425.16 to apply only to pleadings filed in court.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|