Opinion ID: 2481670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Wright Development's Burden of Proof Under the Act

Text: Because Walsh, as the moving party, met his burden under section 15 to show the complaint is based on, relates to, or is in response to Walsh's acts in furtherance of his constitutional rights, section 20(c) of the Act shifts the burden of proof to the responding party, Wright Development. See 735 ILCS 110/15, 20(a), (c) (West 2008). Section 20 requires the responding party to produce clear and convincing evidence demonstrating the defendant's statements are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act. 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). Wright Development principally argues Walsh's petitioning activity was a sham or not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome. Wright Development contends Walsh's deposition transcript constitutes clear and convincing evidence in support of this argument. Wright Development repeatedly alleges throughout its brief Walsh admitted that he lied and knowingly and intentionally defamed Wright Development by misnaming Wright Development Group instead of Sixty Thirty as the building developer when he spoke to the newspaper reporter. Wright Development has not met its burden. Rather, Wright Development presents a fraction of the truth. Walsh testified as follows in response to Wright Development's counsel's questions: Q. And why did you say it's the group of the Wrights versus the Wright Group when you knew that the developer of the building was 6030 LLC? A. Because that's the only thing I could think of when I was doing it, when I was saying it. Q. You couldn't think of the developer being 6030, LLC? A. No. I justWhenever I think of the developer, I think of the Wrights. Q. Why is that? A. Because to me, that's the developer. Q. Which Wrights do you think of? A. I think of Andrew and Jamie. Q. And when you are speaking to the reporter, that's who you were thinking of? A. Yes. Q. That's what you were trying to communicate to the reporter? A. Uh-huh, yes. The unrebutted testimony by Walsh in his deposition establishes at the time Walsh made reference to the Wright Development Group in his conversation with the reporter, he was referring to the group of individuals and business entities which were the defendants in the condominium-conversion lawsuit. Andrew and James Wright are members of Sixty Thirty LLC and are the live persons who interacted with Walsh. Walsh's deposition testimony further reveals that he was unaware of the existence of the distinct corporate entity known as Wright Development Group, LLC, as he stood speaking with the reporter during the mingling session. Further, the record shows the members of Wright Development are functionally enmeshed with Wright Management LLC, and Andrew Wright and James Wright are parties to the dispute over the Sixty Thirty project. Walsh's description of the developers of the Sixty Thirty project appeared true on its face and turned out to be true in substance. When viewed in this context, the natural reading of the Pioneer article is as a reference to the group involved in the condominium conversion and not the separate corporate entityWright Development Group, LLCwhich filed the defamation suit. The trial court ruled similarly when it dismissed Wright Development's complaint under section 2-615. Thus, Wright Development has not produced clear and convincing evidence demonstrating Walsh's statements are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act. 735 ILCS 110/20 (West 2008). We turn to the trial court's distinction concerning the statement after the meeting. The Act makes no such restriction. By its terms, the Act applies to any motion to dispose of a claim in a judicial proceeding on the grounds that the claim is based on, relates to, or is in response to any act or acts of the moving party in furtherance of the moving party's rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government. (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 110/15 (West 2008). Included in the definition of government is the electorate. 735 ILCS 110/10 (West 2008). Therefore, nothing in the words any act or acts suggests a requirement of direct appeal to a government official. Further, the Act does not limit the protected rights to petitioning the government only. The Act plainly includes the rights to speech and association as well. 735 ILCS 110/15 (West 2008). As these rights are to be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence, the legislature has provided that the Act is to be construed liberally. 735 ILCS 110/30 (West 2008). This clearly applies to Walsh's statement to a reporter made during a public forum concerning proposed legislation targeting condominium conversions. The trial court's misreading, based on its erroneous belief that the Act be strictly construed, has no basis in the statutory language and is antithetical to the legislature's express provisions. Each of Wright Development's remaining case law citations are distinguishable on their facts because they are based on Wright Development's rejected and unsubstantiated assertion that the Walsh's deposition shows he was intentionally lying. See, e.g., Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 123 L.Ed.2d 611 (1993); McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985); Stahelin v. Forest Preserve District, 376 Ill.App.3d 765, 315 Ill.Dec. 792, 877 N.E.2d 1121 (2007). Accordingly, Wright Development has failed in its burden under the Act.