Opinion ID: 3064643
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Oregon’s Anti-SLAPP Statutes

Text: Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 31.150 - 31.155 comprise Oregon’s antiSLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) statutes. Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to allow the early dismissal of meritless lawsuits aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-consuming litigation. Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Comms. Co., 377 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004). Section 31.150 allows defendants to bring a special motion to strike a claim which shall be treated as a motion to dismiss under Or. R. Civ. P. 21 A and requires the court to enter a “judgment of dismissal without prejudice” if the motion is granted. The court’s consideration of a special motion to strike is a two-step process. First, the defendant has the initial burden to show that the challenged statement is within one of the categories of civil actions described in Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150(2).7 If the defendant meets the initial burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish 6 Local Rule 72-1 for the District of Oregon allows “every magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, without further designation or assignment from the court.” 7 In pertinent part, “(c) Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document presented, in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or (d) Any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” GARDNER v. MARTINO 4833 that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the court shall deny the motion.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150(3). Appellants do not challenge that the Appellees met their initial burden to show that Martino’s statements fall within one of the categories of civil actions described in Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150(2). Instead, Appellants appeal the district court’s ruling that Appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that there is a probability that they would prevail on their claims as alleged in the first amended complaint. Appellants argue that Martino’s statements constitute false assertions of fact and do not receive First Amendment protection.