Analysis of Anti-SLAPP Motions

I. ANTI-SLAPP OVERVIEW & LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. What Are Anti-SLAPP Laws?

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): Meritless lawsuits filed to silence critics through litigation costs and intimidation.

Anti-SLAPP Statutes: Provide procedural mechanisms to quickly dismiss meritless claims targeting protected speech and petition activities.

B. Federal Anti-SLAPP Landscape

• No comprehensive federal Anti-SLAPP statute

• 28 states + DC have Anti-SLAPP laws

• Diversity jurisdiction issues: Erie doctrine complications

• Godin v. Schencks (1st Cir. 2008): State Anti-SLAPP laws apply in diversity cases

II. MAJOR ANTI-SLAPP STATUTORY MODELS

A. California Model (Broad Protection)

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16

Key Features:

• Two-step analysis

• Broad protected activity definition

• Mandatory attorney fees for successful movants

• Discovery stay upon filing

• Immediate appealability of denials

Landmark Cases:

• Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002): Early merits scrutiny

• Navellier v. Sletten (2002): Applies to any claim arising from protected activity

• Baral v. Schnitt (2016): Mixed claims can be partially stricken

B. Texas Model (Moderate Protection)

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001

Key Features:

• TCPA (2011-2019): Very broad protection

• 2019 Amendments: Narrowed scope significantly

• Exemptions: Commercial speech, employment disputes

• Expedited dismissal process

Landmark Cases:

• D Magazine Partners v. Rosenthal (2016): Broad interpretation of public concern

• Creative Oil & Gas v. Lona Hills Ranch (2019): Commercial speech exemption

• Adams v. Starside Custom Builders (2020): Post-2019 application

C. New York Model (Narrow Protection)

NY CPLR § 3211(g) & § 3212(h)

Key Features:

• Narrower protected activity definition

• "Public interest" requirement

• No automatic fee-shifting

• Higher burden for defendants

Landmark Cases:

• 600 W. 115th St. Corp. v. Von Gutfeld (1992): Early common law protection

• CPLR amendments (2020): Expanded protection slightly

• Gottwald v. Sebert (2021): Application in commercial contexts

D. Washington Model (Intermediate)

RCW 4.24.525

Key Features:

• Balanced approach

• Protected petitioning activities definition

• Fee-shifting provisions

• Summary judgment standard

III. ANTI-SLAPP PROCEDURAL MECHANICS

A. The Two-Step Analysis (California Model)

Step 1: Protected Activity Prong

Defendant must show:

• Claim arises from protected petitioning activity

• In connection with public issue

Protected Activities Typically Include:

• Statements before legislative/executive proceedings

• Statements in judicial proceedings

• Writings in public forums

• Issues of public interest

Step 2: Probability of Success Prong

Plaintiff must show:

• Probability of prevailing on claim

• Minimal merit standard

• Evidence sufficient to sustain favorable judgment

B. Timing & Procedural Requirements

Filing Deadlines:

• California: 60 days after service of complaint

• Texas: 60 days after service (pre-2019), now varies

• New York: No specific deadline, but early filing encouraged

• Federal courts: Varies by circuit

Discovery Impact:

• Automatic stay in most states during pendency

• Limited discovery allowed for meeting burden

• Expedited hearing schedules

IV. FACTORS IMPACTING ANTI-SLAPP SUCCESS

A. Defendant-Side Winning Factors

1. Clear Protected Activity

✓ Speech on matters of public concern
✓ Petitioning government bodies
✓ News reporting on public issues
✓ Consumer reviews and complaints

2. Weak Plaintiff Case

✓ Lack of evidence for essential elements
✓ Constitutional defenses (actual malice)
✓ Privilege defenses
✓ Lack of damages evidence

3. Strategic Timing & Forum

✓ Early filing before discovery costs mount
✓ Favorable state court jurisdiction
✓ Judge experience with Anti-SLAPP motions

4. Strong Legal Representation

✓ Experience with Anti-SLAPP procedure
✓ Understanding of local court tendencies
✓ Effective evidence presentation

B. Plaintiff-Side Defense Strategies

1. Avoiding Anti-SLAPP Scope

✓ Commercial speech exceptions
✓ Private contract disputes
✓ Purely commercial transactions
✓ Non-expressive conduct

2. Demonstrating Minimal Merit

✓ Prima facie case evidence
✓ Likelihood of success showing
✓ Defeating constitutional defenses
✓ Damages evidence

3. Procedural Arguments

✓ Untimely filing
✓ Waiver arguments
✓ Jurisdictional challenges
✓ Improper application to claims

V. CRITICAL CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS

A. Supreme Court Influences

1. Constitutional Limitations

• NY Times v. Sullivan (1964): Actual malice standard

• BE & K Construction Co. v. NLRB (2002): First Amendment protects some petitioning

• Snyder v. Phelps (2011): Speech on public concerns protection

2. Federalism Issues

• D.C. Circuit: State Anti-SLAPP in federal court confusion

• 9th Circuit: Generally applies state Anti-SLAPP in diversity

• 2nd Circuit: Mixed approach to state procedures

B. State Supreme Court Landmarks

California

• Briggs v. Eden Council (1999): Broad protected activity

• Jarrow Formulas v. La Marche (2003): Malicious prosecution exceptions

• FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019): Commercial speech analysis

Texas

• In re Lipsky (2015): Evidentiary standards

• S & S Emergency Training v. Elliott (2020): Post-2019 amendments

• Montelongo v. Abrea (2021): Commercial exemption application

New York

• Dawson v. Alred (2020): Public interest requirement

• Matter of Phillips v. City of New York (2021): Government speech issues

VI. STATE-BY-STATE SALIENT DIFFERENCES

A. Broad Protection States

California

• Most defendant-friendly

• Low burden for step 1

• Mandatory fee awards

• Immediate appeals

Washington

• RCW 4.24.525

• Balanced approach

• Protected petitioning focus

• Reasonable fees

Oregon

• ORS 31.150

• Similar to California

• Broader public issue definition

• Substantial evidence standard

B. Moderate Protection States

Texas

• Post-2019 narrowing

• Commercial speech exemptions

• Heightened burden for defendants

• Still meaningful protection

Illinois

• Citizen Participation Act

• Comprehensive protection

• Burden-shifting framework

• Fee-shifting discretionary

Massachusetts

• Anti-SLAPP statute

• "Petitioning" activities focus

• No punitive damages if dismissed

• Reasonable attorney fees

C. Narrow Protection States

New York

• Limited to public interest

• Higher initial burden

• Discretionary fees

• Recent expansions (2020)

Florida

• Limited application

• Citizen participation in government

• Narrower protected activities

• Fewer procedural advantages

Georgia

• Anti-SLAPP statute

• Free speech and right to petition

• Burden similar to summary judgment

• Fee-shifting available

D. Unique State Approaches

Nevada

• Broad protection

• Special motion to dismiss

• Fee-shifting mandatory

• Immediate appeal

Colorado

• CPAMPA statute

• Public participation protection

• Expedited procedures

• Fee-shifting provisions

Louisiana

• LSA-C.C.P. Art. 971

• Protected communication definition

• Burden-shifting framework

• Attorney fees available

VII. ANTI-SLAPP WINNABILITY FACTORS

A. High Success Probability Scenarios

1. Media & Journalism Contexts

✓ News reporting on public figures
✓ Investigative journalism
✓ Opinion pieces on public issues
✓ Book reviews and criticism

2. Public Advocacy

✓ Environmental activism
✓ Consumer protection advocacy
✓ Political campaigning
✓ Government oversight

3. Online Speech

✓ Yelp/google reviews
✓ Social media commentary
✓ Blog posts on public issues
✓ Consumer complaint websites

B. Lower Success Probability Scenarios

1. Commercial Disputes

✓ Business competitor disputes
✓ Contract interpretation issues
✓ Employment disputes
✓ Trade secret allegations

2. Private Matters

✓ Personal defamation without public concern
✓ Private contractual relationships
✓ Family law disputes
✓ Personal injury claims

3. Mixed Speech/Conduct

✓ Protests with illegal conduct
✓ Speech incidental to illegal activity
✓ Commercial advertising
✓ Professional services criticism

VIII. REMEDIES & CONSEQUENCES

A. Successful Anti-SLAPP Outcomes

1. Dismissal with Prejudice

• Claim elimination

• Prevention of refiling

• Res judicata effect

2. Attorney Fees & Costs

• Mandatory in many states

• Substantial awards common

• Includes appeal costs

3. Additional Remedies

• Costs and sanctions

• Injunctions against similar suits

• Damages in some jurisdictions

B. Unsuccessful Anti-SLAPP Consequences

1. Appeal Rights

• Immediate appeal in some states

• Interlocutory appeal standards

• Final judgment rule exceptions

2. Continued Litigation

• Lift of discovery stay

• Proceeding to merits

• Potential fee liability for defendant

IX. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

A. Plaintiff Avoidance Strategies

1. Pre-Filing Analysis

✓ Anti-SLAPP exposure assessment
✓ Jurisdictional planning
✓ Claim framing to avoid protection
✓ Evidence gathering pre-filing

2. Pleading Strategies

✓ Focus on non-protected conduct
✓ Emphasize commercial context
✓ Avoid public issue allegations
✓ Separate protected/unprotected claims

B. Defendant Maximization Strategies

1. Early Motion Practice

✓ Immediate response filing
✓ Comprehensive evidence submission
✓ Strategic protected activity characterization
✓ Multiple legal theories

2. Fee Maximization

✓ Detailed time records
✓ Expert fee testimony
✓ Appeal cost preservation
✓ Fee enhancement arguments

X. EMERGING TRENDS & FUTURE DIRECTIONS

A. Digital Age Applications

• Social media speech protection

• Online review platforms

• Blogger and influencer rights

• Cybersmear cases

B. Federalization Efforts

• Proposed federal Anti-SLAPP laws

• Circuit split resolution needs

• Erie doctrine clarification

• Uniform standards development

C. State Law Evolution

• Trend toward broader protection

• Commercial speech boundary testing

• International Anti-SLAPP developments

• Intersection with other speech protections

CONCLUSION: WINNING ANTI-SLAPP STRATEGIES

Critical Success Factors:

1. Jurisdictional Mastery: Deep understanding of specific state standards

2. Early Case Assessment: Realistic evaluation of protected activity status

3. Evidence Preparation: Comprehensive documentation from outset

4. Strategic Timing: Optimal motion filing considering all factors

5. Fee Maximization: Careful attention to cost recovery opportunities

State Selection Importance:

• Defendant-friendly: California, Washington, Nevada

• Plaintiff-friendly: New York, Florida, federal courts

• Evolving standards: Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts

The Anti-SLAPP landscape continues evolving with technology and First Amendment jurisprudence, requiring constant vigilance and strategic adaptation by practitioners.