First Amendment / Anti-SLAPP
Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws are designed to protect individuals and organizations from meritless lawsuits aimed at chilling their freedom of speech or right to petition the government. SLAPP lawsuits are typically filed by powerful entities, such as corporations or public officials, to intimidate or silence critics, activists, journalists, or whistleblowers. Anti-SLAPP laws provide a mechanism for defendants to quickly dismiss such lawsuits and recover legal fees and damages.
Key features of anti-SLAPP laws include:
- Early Dismissal: Defendants can file a special motion to dismiss at the early stages of litigation, typically after being served with a SLAPP lawsuit. This motion triggers a hearing where the defendant must demonstrate that the lawsuit arises from protected speech or petitioning activity.
- Burden of Proof: Once the defendant demonstrates that the lawsuit arises from protected activity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on the merits of the case. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the lawsuit is dismissed.
- Attorney’s Fees and Costs: If the defendant prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion, they may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against the lawsuit. This provision aims to deter frivolous litigation and compensate defendants for their legal expenses.
- Broad Protection: Anti-SLAPP laws typically protect a wide range of speech and petitioning activities, including statements made in public forums, online communications, participation in government proceedings, and other forms of expressive activity.
- Variations by Jurisdiction: Anti-SLAPP laws vary by jurisdiction in terms of their scope, procedures, and remedies. Some states have robust anti-SLAPP statutes, while others have narrower protections or no specific anti-SLAPP provisions at all.
Overall, anti-SLAPP laws play a crucial role in safeguarding individuals’ rights to free speech, expression, and participation in public discourse by providing a swift and effective mechanism to dismiss frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing criticism or dissent.
Our firm has had substantial success litigating anti-SLAPP cases and has been a driving force in making and clarifying the law in California including:
- Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC, 72 Cal.App.5th 802 (2021)
- Beck v. Yozura, 2022 WL 16757167 (2022)
- Pech v. Doniger, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 471 (2022)