against defamation liability for those who use the Internet to publish information that
originated from another source.” (Barrett at p. 39.) It concluded that “section 230
prohibits distributor liability for Internet publications.” (Id. at p. 40.)
6
Subsequently, Barrett was followed by Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th
1354. It held that “although ‘not every [w]eb site post involves a public issue’ [citation],
consumer information that goes beyond a particular interaction between the parties and
implicates matters of public concern that can affect many people is generally deemed to
involve an issue of public interest for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. [Citations.]”
(Id. at p. 1367.)
In the current case, the initial exchange of comments between Hupp and Bishop
concerned the pension story. The tenor of the exchange changed when Bishop said he
had made a Google search on Hupp and asked if he was a vexatious litigant. In its
memorandum of points and authorities in support of the anti-SLAPP motion, the Register
essentially argued that Hupp was such a well-known vexatious litigant that he had been
the subject of discussion on other websites.2
Bishop also provided a link to a forum which was discussing a petition for
rehearing en banc filed by Hupp in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition
contains especially extreme language that can be interpreted as threats directed at the
judges themselves, and it received wide comment on the Internet.3 The Register
therefore argues that the subject of vexatious litigants was also an issue of public interest.
2 The Register found it necessary to include in its appendix 145 pages of docket sheets in federal district court cases filed by Hupp and records of state court actions in which his name appears. It also includes two district court orders declaring Hupp to be a vexatious litigant. {RA 195-198}
3 The Register also provides us with a copy of the offensive petition for hearing en banc, followed by eight Internet articles and forum postings on various websites [footnote continued on next page]
7
We follow Barrett and the other cases cited above and conclude that the Register’s
actions arose from its acts in furtherance of its free speech rights. Maintaining a forum
for discussion of issues of public interest is a quintessential way to facilitate rights, and
the Register has no liability for doing so.
For the same reason, we conclude that Hupp has not shown a probability of
prevailing in the action. He has not provided any argument on this issue. As Barrett
states, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 230) “prohibits
‘distributor’ liability for Internet publications.” (Barrett, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 40.)
Thus, the Communications Decency Act completely bars this type of lawsuit against an
Internet publisher. Accordingly, subject to the following section, the trial court properly
granted the Register’s anti-SLAPP motion.
DOCUMENT SERVICE ISSUES
Hupp’s complaint was filed on March 22, 2012. It was served on July 2, 2012.
The Register had 30 days to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. (§ 412.20,
subd. (a)(3).)
On July 24, 2012, within the 30 day period, the Register filed an ex parte motion
to extend the time to file an answer or other responsive pleading. It requested an
extension because it planned to file an anti-SLAPP motion by August 31, 2012.
[footnote continued from previous page] concerning the petition. {RA 232, 241, 258-322} It is interesting to note that, despite his alleged privacy concerns, Hupp participated in the Volokh Conspiracy postings, even though many details of his life were openly discussed.{RA 288-312}
8
The request noted that such a motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of
the complaint. The Register’s counsel also stated that, on July 16, 2012, she called and
left a telephone message for Hupp, and also sent him an e-mail regarding the extension
request. “Mr. Hupp promptly responded to the email, but it is not clear whether he
opposed the application.”
The motion was granted and the judicial officer ordered that a copy be served on
all parties that had appeared in the case. Hupp acknowledges receipt of the order on July
30, 2012.
On August 31, 2012, the anti-SLAPP motion was filed. The motion was set for
hearing on September 28, 2012. A proof of service by mail was filed with it and the
register of actions states that a declaration of service was filed on that date. However,
Hupp denies receiving the motion.
On September 13, 2012, the process server filed an amended proof of service of
the motion documents. The document states that the prior proof of service “inadvertently
contained incorrect information with respect to service.” The amended proof of service
states that the documents were served “by leaving copies of the papers with the security
guard at the front of the gated community in which the plaintiff’s residence is
contained . . . .” This is a permissible means of service. (Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group,
Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387.)
However, Hupp subsequently provided a declaration of the gate guard that states
that he turned the process server away; the process server did not leave any documents
9
with him, and he would not have accepted them. The gate guard was apparently unaware
of section 415.21.
On September 24, 2012, Hupp filed an ex parte motion to strike the anti-SLAPP
motion for lack of a proper service. However, he acknowledged receipt of the motion on
September 13, 2012 by Federal Express. This statement refers to a copy of the motion
papers which was sent on September 12, 2012. Hupp thus states that he only had 15
calendar days to respond before the September 28 hearing.
The ex parte motion filed by Hupp on September 24, 2012, was titled as a motion
to strike the anti-SLAPP motion for lack of proper service. However, Hupp refers to it as
opposition papers to the anti-SLAPP motion.
The Register states that a case management conference was held on October 10,
2012 and Hupp stated that the motion was actually his opposition to the anti-SLAPP
motion. Apparently, the court considered it as an opposition brief, as did the Register.
The Register then filed a reply on October 11, 1012.
On September 26, 2012, the Register’s counsel filed a motion for a short
continuance of the hearing set for September 28, 2012. Counsel stated that she was
required to have minor surgery on September 25, 2012, and that she would be unable to
attend the scheduled hearing. Counsel also stated that she left a telephone message with
Hupp on September 17, and had sent him a detailed email on September 13th. The
declaration in support of the continuance request was mailed on September 17, 2012, and
a proof of service by mail was filed on September 25, 2012.
10
The request for a continuance was granted and the hearing on the motion was held
on October 18, 2012. Our record does not contain a transcript of the hearing, but the
court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, presumably for the reasons discussed above.
From the foregoing, we conclude that Hupp admittedly received the moving
papers by Federal Express on September 13, 2012. He therefore had 34 calendar days
before the rescheduled hearing on October 18. (§ 12.) He therefore had actual notice of
the action in time to defend the anti-SLAPP motion. (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94
Cal.App.4th 540, 547-548.)
Hupp cites section 1005. That section calls for moving papers to be served and
filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. If, as here, an overnight delivery service is
used, two calendar days are added on for a total of 18 days. Because of the continuance,
the Register’s motion was filed long before 18 days before the hearing.
Opposing papers must be filed within nine court days before the hearing or, in this
case, October 5, 2012. (§ 1005.) Thus, Hupp had 16 court days (from September 13 to
October 5) to prepare his response.
Hupp argues that the two ex parte motions to extend the dates should affect the
time computations. As discussed above, the first motion merely extended the time to file
the motion. It did not affect the time to respond to the motion.
The second ex parte motion continued the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion from
September 28 to October 18. Although the time on the original hearing date (September
13 to 28) was insufficient, Hupp had sufficient time to file documents nine court days
before the October 18 hearing date.
11
The time properly began to run when the motion was admittedly received on
September 13, not counting prior service attempts.4 The calendar was not reset by the ex
parte continuance request and Hupp does not cite any authority to establish that an ex
parte continuance started a new time running on September 27, the date of the
continuance request. We therefore apply the statutes and find that the Register complied
with all service requirements.
4 Although the alleged service on the guard at the gated community on August 31, 2012 was disputed, the dispute is irrelevant to the outcome because of the Federal Express service of the motion documents, which Hupp admits he actually received on September 13, 2012. Since we do not have a transcript of the October 18 hearing, we do not know if the court discussed these issues or not. Hupp says the court took no action to address these issues, but he does not say if any rulings were made. {AOB 8}
12
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order granting the Register’s special motion to strike plaintiff’s
complaint is affirmed. The Register to recover its costs on appeal.5
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
KING J.
5 At oral argument, counsel for the Register asked this Court to direct the trial court to award and determine attorney fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c), which provides that a “prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs” and Mendoza v. ADP Screening (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, which holds that this mandatory provision applies to attorney fees and costs incurred in responding to the unsuccessful plaintiff’s appeal. We decline to provide such direction to the trial court because we trust that it will follow the law on this point.
13
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant's maintenance of a website for public discussion of issues of public interest constitutes protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits because the Communications Decency Act bars distributor liability for Internet publications.
Issues
Whether the defendant's maintenance of a website allowing user comments on articles of public interest constitutes protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Whether the plaintiff demonstrated a probability of prevailing on a breach of contract claim against an Internet publisher for failing to remove user comments.
Whether the defendant complied with statutory service requirements for the anti-SLAPP motion.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Maintaining a forum for discussion of issues of public interest is a quintessential way to facilitate rights, and the Register has no liability for doing so.”
“the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 230) “prohibits ‘distributor’ liability for Internet publications.””
“Thus, the Communications Decency Act completely bars this type of lawsuit against an Internet publisher.”