Opinion ID: 2600567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Principles Regarding Section 425.16

Text: The anti-SLAPP statute, section 425.16, allows a court to strike any cause of action that arises from the defendant's exercise of his or her constitutionally protected rights of free speech or petition for redress of grievances. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We described the purpose of the statute, and the process by which a motion to strike is determined, in the companion case, Soukup v. Hafif (July 27, 2006, ___ Cal.4th ___, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638, 139 P.3d 30, 2006 WL 2075700 S126715/S126864) where we said: `The Legislature enacted section 425.16 to prevent and deter lawsuits [referred to as SLAPP's] brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) Because these meritless lawsuits seek to deplete the defendant's energy and drain his or her resources [citation], the Legislature sought `to prevent SLAPPs by ending them early and without great cost to the SLAPP target.' [Citation.] Section 425.16 therefore establishes a procedure where the trial court evaluates the merits of the lawsuit using a summary-judgment-like procedure at an early stage of the litigation.' ( Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 298, 106 P.3d 958]; Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche [, supra, ] 31 Cal.4th [728] [at p.] 737 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 74 P.3d 737] [Section 425.16 `is a procedural device for screening out meritless claims'].) [¶] ... [¶] The Legislature's purpose in enacting the anti-SLAPP statute is set forth in its findings and declarations. `The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.' (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) Furthermore, to accomplish this purpose the Legislature has directed that the statute `be broadly construed.' ( Ibid. ) To this end, when construing the anti-SLAPP statute, `[w]here possible we follow the Legislature's intent, as exhibited by the plain meaning of the actual words of the law.... [Citation.]' ( Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 733 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 74 P.3d 737], quoting California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 632 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671, 927 P.2d 1175].) ( Id. at pp. ___-___, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 651-652, 139 P.3d at p. 42.) Our concern for effectuating the legislative intent as demonstrated by the plain language of the statute has led us to reject attempts to read into section 425.16 requirements not explicitly contained in that language. (See, e.g., Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, supra, 31 Cal.4th 728, 735, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 74 P.3d 737 [no categorical exemption for malicious prosecution actions under section 425.16 where the Legislature had not created such an exemption]; City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 74-76, 124 Cal. Rptr.2d 519, 52 P.3d 695 [declining to read into section 426.16 a requirement that a defendant demonstrate that the plaintiff's action actually intended to chill the defendant's exercise of his or her protected rights]; Briggs v. Eden Council, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 1113-1117, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564 [section 425.25, subdivision (e)(1) and (2) do not require that statements made before, or in connection with an issue pending before an official proceeding, also involve an issue of public significance absent statutory language to that effect].) In short, our anti-SLAPP jurisprudence has attempted to effectuate the central purpose of the statute by carefully examining the actual words of the statute and giving them their plain meaning. As noted, the purpose of section 425.16 is to prevent the chilling of the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances by the abuse of the judicial process. (§ 426.16, subd. (a).) As a necessary corollary to this statement, because not all speech or petition activity is constitutionally protected, not all speech or petition activity is protected by section 425.16. (See, e.g., Lam v. Ngo (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 832, 851, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 582 [violence and other criminal acts are not protected by the First Amendment even if committed out of political motives at a political demonstration, nor would Doe defendants who engaged in such activity be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute].) The scope of [section 425.16] is not without limits, as demonstrated in ... cases finding lawsuits were not within its protection. [Citations.] ( Paul v. Friedman (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 853, 864, 117 Cal. Rptr.2d 82.) The case most often cited in support of this proposition is Paul for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 864 ( Paul ), disapproved on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68, footnote 5, 124 Cal. Rptr.2d 507, 52 P.3d 685. Flatley argues, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that Paul is dispositive of the issues raised in this case, so we examine it in some detail.