Varian v. Delfino facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Varian v. Delfino |
|
|---|---|
Supreme Court of California
|
|
| Decided 5 March 2006, | |
| Full case name | Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) |
| Citation(s) | 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 298 |
| Court membership | |
| Associate Justices | Janice R. Brown |
The case of Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino was an important decision by the California Supreme Court in 2005. It helped explain how a special law called the SLAPP statute works. SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." These lawsuits are sometimes used to stop people from speaking freely.
This court case decided that if someone appeals a judge's decision about a SLAPP motion, then all other court actions in that case must pause. This means you have a right not to be forced through court just for using your constitutional rights to speak up.
Contents
About the Varian v. Delfino Case
This case was about two scientists, Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day. They were sued by their former employer, Varian Medical Systems. The company claimed that the scientists had made many critical comments about them online. These comments were posted on their Website and on different message boards.
The company, Varian Medical Systems, used to be called Varian Associates. The lawsuit also included two senior executives from Varian and a company that spun off from Varian, called Varian Semiconductor.
What Happened in the Lawsuit?
In 2001, before the main court trial began, Delfino and Day asked the court to stop the lawsuit. They used California's Anti-SLAPP law for this. They argued that Varian's lawsuit was trying to stop their free speech.
However, the trial court judge said no to their request. Delfino and Day then decided to appeal this decision. But even though they appealed, the trial court and another court, the California Courts of Appeal, did not stop the trial.
The trial continued, and Delfino and Day lost. A jury decided they had to pay $775,000 to Varian. The judge also ordered them not to publish or share 23 types of statements about the company.
The Court's Big Decision
Delfino and Day then took their case to the California Supreme Court. They wanted to know if the trial should have been paused while their appeal about the Anti-SLAPP law was still being decided.
On March 3, 2005, the Supreme Court made a big decision. All seven judges agreed that the trial court should have paused the case. They said that because Delfino and Day had appealed the Anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court did not have the right to continue with the trial.
The Supreme Court then reversed the earlier judgment. This meant the $775,000 judgment against Delfino and Day was canceled. The court said that the trial was "completely void" because it should have been paused.
The Supreme Court also said that Delfino and Day's online comments were simply "derogatory," meaning they were critical. The case was sent back to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for a new trial.
The Case Comes to an End
Before the second trial could begin, in March 2006, both sides decided to settle the case. This meant they reached an agreement outside of court. After more than seven years of disagreements, the lawsuit finally ended peacefully.
Many groups supported Delfino and Day in this case. The California Attorney General, the California Newspaper Publishers Association (which included the Los Angeles Times, Oakland Tribune, and San Francisco Chronicle), and the ACLU all filed special briefs to the Supreme Court. These groups believed that the case was important for protecting free speech.
