In General: A special broader motion to strike is authorized against so-called "SLAPP" suits (standing for "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation")--i.e., lawsuits brought "primarily to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights." [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16]

Ca Civ Pro § 425.16 provides a summary procedure to dispose of such suits at the pleading stage: "Unlike demurrers or motions to strike which are designed to eliminate sham or facially meritless allegations, at the pleading stage, a SLAPP motion, like a summary judgment motion, pierces the pleadings and requires an evidentiary showing . . . (T)he test applied to a SLAPP motion is similar to that of a motion for summary judgment." [Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 400 (emphasis in original)]

Claims Subject to Being Stricken: Basically any cause of action against a person for exercising his or her right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue must be stricken . . . unless the court finds a "probability" that plaintiff will prevail on whatever claim is involved (see 7:245 ff.). [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(b)]

The cause of action to be stricken may be asserted either in a complaint or petition or cross-complaint. [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(h); see Kajima Eng. & Const., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 929, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 187, 193]

Lawsuits as protected activity: Filing a lawsuit is an exercise of a party's constitutional right of petition that "includes the basic act of filing litigation or otherwise seeking administrative action." [Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 476]

Thus, any other lawsuit that seeks to penalize or inhibit the filing of a judicial complaint may be subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. [Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1087, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 825, 828]

1. Malicious prosecution actions: An anti-SLAPP motion may be used to challenge a malicious prosecution action. [Chavez v. Mendoza, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at 1089, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d at 829--earlier lawsuit based on promissory note]
2. Abuse of process actions: Similarly, an abuse of process action may be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. [See ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1014, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625, 644 (dictum because no valid abuse of process claim)] [7:208.23-208.24] Reserved.
3. Compare--malicious prosecution action against lawyer? One case holds an anti-SLAPP motion can be made by a defendant in the malicious prosecution action who was the lawyer in the underlying lawsuit because it involves petition activity. [Chavez v. Mendoza, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at 1087-1088, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d at 828-829] But another case suggests that the lawyer in an underlying lawsuit may not rely on the SLAPP statute because the attorney is not "the person" (Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(b)(1)) whose petition rights are implicated in the petitioning activity. [Shekhter v. Financial Indem. Co. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 141, 151-154, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 851-852] [7:208.26-208.29] Reserved.
4. Compare--other retaliatory lawsuits: A cross-complaint or independent lawsuit filed in retaliation for threatened or actual litigation is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute simply because it may be viewed as an oppressive litigation tactic. A lawsuit is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion "unless its allegations arise from acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech." [Kajima Eng. & Const., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 924, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 187, 189]

The "favored causes of action" for SLAPP suits are defamation, various business torts such as interference with prospective economic advantage, nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking "damages which would be ruinous to the defendants." [Wilcox v. Sup.Ct. (Peters) (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 816, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 449; Conroy v. Spitzer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443, 446--defamation action based on statements made during political campaign concerning candidate's conduct in office properly dismissed under anti-SLAPP statute] But Ca Civ Pro § 425.16 is not limited to tort actions. It applies to any claim designed to "bludgeon the opposition into submission" and thereby discourage free exercise of a constitutionally-protected right. [Church of Scientology of Calif. v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 652-653, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 620, 634--nontortious claim to set aside judgment in prior action and discourage defendant's litigation activities]

Timing of motion: The anti-SLAPP motion must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint or amended complaint. Thereafter, a motion may be permitted in the court's discretion "upon terms it deems proper." [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(f)]

Defendant's burden of proof: Defendant must make a prima facie showing that plaintiff's lawsuit arises from defendant's exercise of free speech or petition as defined in Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(e)

Plaintiff's burden of proof: Once defendant makes such prima facie showing, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish a "probability" that it will prevail on whatever claims are asserted against the defendant

Discovery stayed: Unless the court orders otherwise for "good cause shown," all discovery proceedings shall be stayed upon filing of a notice of motion under Ca Civ Pro § 425.16. The stay remains in effect until notice of entry of order ruling on the motion. [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(g)]

Procedure where discovery needed: Because a § 425.16 motion may be made within 60 days after service of the complaint (and must be heard within 30 days thereafter), plaintiff may need additional discovery to oppose defendant's motion. If so, it must move for an order allowing such discovery (and, if necessary, a continuance of the hearing). It cannot merely oppose the motion for lack of opportunity to obtain such information. [Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 867, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46, 53-54; Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 357, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 464, 469]

Fees and costs: The "prevailing defendant" on the motion to strike "shall be entitled" to recover his or her attorney fees and costs. [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(c)] But if the motion is found to be "frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay," plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs and fees as sanctions (see below). [Ca Civ Pro § 425.16(c)]

Recent Cases

CA Supreme Court - A defendant who moves under anti-SLAPP statute to strike cause of action does not have to prove plaintiff's subjective intent. Court held that in order for a Defendant to obtain a dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, he need not demonstrate that the action was brought with the intent to chill the Defendant's exercise of rights. quilon Enterprises LL c. Consumer Cause, Inc, 2002 DJDAR 9945

CA Supreme Court - Action based on Defendant's counterclaims filed in prior and unrelated suit is one "arising from" activity protected by anti-SLAPP statute. Court held that an action based on the defendant having filed counterclaims by anti-SLAPP statute. Court held that an action based on the defendant having filed counterclaims in a prior, unrelated proceeding in federal court, is one "arising from" activity protected by Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, which provides for early dismissal of certain actions known as "strategic lawsuits against public participation." Navallier v. Sletten, et. al., 2002 DJDAR 9954.

CA Court of Appeal - Defendants are entitled to a ruling on merits of SLAPP motion and attorney fees despite case being previously dismissed. A trial court still has jurisdiction to award defendants their fees, even if the Complaint has been voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed prior to the ruling on the SLAPP motion. Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard, et. al. 2002 DJDAR, 9389.