The anti-SLAPP statute authorizes early dismissal of unmeritorious claims that interfere with a person's constitutional right of petition or free speech. CCP § 425.16. There are two prongs for resolving an anti-SLAPP motion. The defendant must first establish the challenged claim arises out of acts in furtherance of the defendant's constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. After making this showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff who must "establish a probability of prevailing on the merits" of the claim. Under the second prong, the court accepts the plaintiff's evidence as true and merely inquires whether the plaintiff stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie showing sufficient for a favorable judgment. To do so, the plaintiff need only show minimal merit.
This blog summarizes the cases from the California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and selected federal court decisions in California since September 16, 2021.
Young v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5916
Plaintiff, an employee at Stanford Health Care, filed a lawsuit against Stanford Health for creating a hostile work environment. Stanford sent a letter to its employees about the lawsuit, which the plaintiff claimed was defamatory. The plaintiff amended her complaint to add a cause of action for defamation. The Court of Appeal held that Stanford satisfied prong one because the letter was made in connection with a judicial proceeding. But, Stanford failed prong two because plaintiff established a probability of prevailing on her defamation claim.
In re Irvin, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6011
Wife filed for divorce. Husband alleged that wife conspired with her mother to impair his interest in community property. As alleged, the mother filed a civil lawsuit against husband and wife claiming that she loaned them money to buy a building a demanding repayment with interest. On the eve of trial, mother dismissed husband from the lawsuit and entered into a settlement with wife in which wife stipulated to a money judgment in favor of mother that mother could collect against the community property.
Husband filed a petition in the family court challenging the settlement. Wife’s anti-slapp motion was granted. In reversing, the Court of Appeal held that wife’s alleged breach of her fiduciary duties by settling litigation with her mother in a manner designed to prevent husband from protecting his community property interests was fundamentally noncommunicative and therefore was not shielded by the litigation privilege. Therefore, even if the claim arose from protected activity, the anti-slapp motion should have been denied because husband met his burden to show probability of prevailing on the merits of his claim.
Fierro v. County of L.A., 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6061
Plaintiff sued the County of Los Angeles and three of its divisions, the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office and the Alternate Public Defender's Office, for defamation, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with prospective economic advantage, based on inclusion of information regarding Fierro in the County's Officer and Recurrent Witness Information Tracking System (ORWITS) database. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s granting of the County’s anti-slapp motion. The Court of Appeal determined that each of the four causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint was expressly based on the disclosure to third parties of information contained in the ORWITS database. The declarations submitted in support of the County's special motion to strike established that all disclosures were to prosecutors or other law enforcement personnel in connection with ongoing or anticipated criminal proceedings. Thus, the communications were protected activity.
Dae v. Traver, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 797
Beneficiary of a Trust appealed from an order denying his anti-slapp motion. Respondent Trustee filed the petition in his capacity as trustee of a family trust. Trustee alleged that beneficiary violated a “no contest” clause in the trust by filing a previous petition challenging Trustee’s actions as trustee. The parties agreed that the petition challenged protected activity, but Trustee showed a probability of prevailing on the merits.
Baiting Jiang v. KNTV TV LLC (N.D. Cal.) 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195216
Plaintiff, a tenant, sued KNTV Television LLC (branded on-air and on its website as NBC Bay Area) for defamation arising from news reports published by KNTV reported on developments in a tenant-landlord dispute involving an eviction proceeding and related civil harassment proceedings filed in San Mateo County Superior Court. The district court granted the anti-slapp motion, finding that KNTV's news reports were protected.
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies, LLC, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 841
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of defendant’s anti-slapp motion. Plaintiff sued a company for defamation and false light after the company issued a statement suggesting that the plaintiff had cheated to achieve high scores on the company's video games. The Court ruled that the plaintiff, a limited public figure, made a prima facie showing of actual malice by presenting evidence that the company, when investigating the allegations of cheating, had relied on biased sources and had purposefully avoided facts that might confirm the probable falsity of the challenged statement. All of this evidence could support an inference of actual malice.
Weeden v. Hoffman, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 849
Real estate buyers filed a complaint alleging that the defendants fraudulently recorded an abstract of judgment claiming an ownership interest in the property. The Court held that the claims arose in part from protected activity because enforcing a judgment was a litigation-related activity. Yet, the claims to quiet title and cancel the instrument were not governed by the litigation privilege and, therefore, the motion was denied as to these claims.
Awi Builders v. Alliant Consulting, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6695
ruling, among other things, that the anti-slapp statute applies to federal civil rights claim filed in state court.