Other Cases Of Interest

An Order Denying An Anti-SLAPP Motion Made In A Limited Jurisdiction Case Is Not Appealable

Citibank N.A. v. Tabalon
(App. Div. LASC), filed September 28, 2012

Citibank brought a collections action against Alicia Tabalon in the Superior Court as a “limited jurisdiction” case. Tabalon responded with a cross-complaint against Citibank. Tabalon alleged Citibank’s collection practices violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq.).

Citibank moved to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, Civil Code section 425.16. It argued (1) the cross-complaint arose from protected speech and petitioning activity, and (2) Tabalon could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claim. The trial court denied Citibank’s motion.

The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court affirmed and dismissed Citibank’s appeal. It ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Citibank’s appeal.

Appeals in limited jurisdiction cases are to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. However, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court has appellate jurisdiction only over matters specified by statute. However, the statute conferring such jurisdiction does not include orders denying an anti-SLAPP motion. Therefore, an order denying such a motion is not appealable.