π€€
Civil Procedure β’ Motions to Strike
CIVPRO#047
Legal Definition
California is among a handful of states with a unique type of motion to strike where the plaintiff has filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation lawsuit (otherwise known as a "SLAPP suit") intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
To make an anti-SLAPP motion, the defendant must make a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from constitutionally protected activity (most commonly defamation cases). The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on the merits. If the defendant prevails on the anti-SLAPP motion, he may bring a SLAPP back motion (i.e., an action for malicious prosecution).
To make an anti-SLAPP motion, the defendant must make a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from constitutionally protected activity (most commonly defamation cases). The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on the merits. If the defendant prevails on the anti-SLAPP motion, he may bring a SLAPP back motion (i.e., an action for malicious prosecution).
Plain English Explanation
The Process of an Anti-SLAPP Motion:
1. Ο: Files SLAPP suit against β.
2. β: Burden to show cause of action arises from 1st Amendment activity.
3. Ο: Burden to show probability of prevailing on merits.
4. β: If prevail, may bring "SLAPP back" motion (suit for malicious prosecution).
1. Ο: Files SLAPP suit against β.
2. β: Burden to show cause of action arises from 1st Amendment activity.
3. Ο: Burden to show probability of prevailing on merits.
4. β: If prevail, may bring "SLAPP back" motion (suit for malicious prosecution).
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob owns a popular slaughterhouse that specializes in raising the most adorable, delicious type of veal in California. Sam runs a vegan blog that writes an article exposing how Bob's slaughterhouse poorly treats animals. Bob is furious and sues Sam for $1 million dollars, claiming that Sam has defamed him personally and caused damage to his business. Result: Bob is clearly trying to censor Sam's First Amendment speech by suing him into silence. This could be considered a SLAPP suit, which would allow Sam to file an anti-SLAPP motion.
