Opinion ID: 2766890
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anti-SLAPP motion

Text: California’s anti-SLAPP statute is “designed to allow courts ‘to promptly expose and dismiss meritless and harassing claims seeking to chill protected expression.’” Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 682 (9th Cir. 2005)). Under the statute, “a party may file a motion to strike a cause of action against it if the complaint ‘aris[es] from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1)). To defeat a motion to strike, a plaintiff must “establish[] that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). The plaintiffs concede that their suit arises from an act by EA in furtherance of its right of free speech under the First Amendment. Indeed, “[v]ideo games are entitled to the full protections of the First Amendment, because ‘[l]ike the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas – and even social messages.’” Keller, 724 F.3d at 1270–71 (quoting Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733 (2011)). DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS 7 The district court denied EA’s motion, however, concluding that the plaintiffs established a reasonable probability they will prevail on their claims. “‘Reasonable probability’ . . . requires only a ‘minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.’” Mindys Cosmetics, 611 F.3d at 598 (quoting Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 2 P.3d 27, 33 n.5 (Cal. 2000)). A plaintiff must “state and substantiate a legally sufficient claim,” id. at 598–99, based on “the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based,” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(2). “‘Put another way, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.’” Mindys Cosmetics, 611 F.3d at 599 (quoting Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, 50 P.3d 733, 739 (Cal. 2002)). “[T]he required probability that [the plaintiffs] will prevail need not be high.” Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2010). EA does not challenge the plaintiffs’ ability to state or support any substantive element of their claims. Instead, EA argues it is not reasonably probable the plaintiffs will prevail, because their claims are barred by five affirmative defenses under the First Amendment – the transformative use defense, the public interest defense, the public affairs exemption of California Civil Code § 3344(d), the Rogers test and the incidental use defense. Although the anti-SLAPP statute “places on the plaintiff the burden of substantiating its claims, a defendant that advances an affirmative defense to such claims properly bears the burden of proof on the defense.” Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 31, 44 (Ct. App. 2005). EA has the burden of establishing the transformative use defense 8 DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS as a matter of law. See Keller, 724 F.3d at 1274. On its other affirmative defenses, EA has the burden of establishing “a probability of prevailing.” Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Ass’n, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 43, 53 (Ct. App. 2006). For the reasons set forth below, EA has not shown a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense, and its other defenses are effectively precluded by our decision in Keller.2 Because EA has not met its burden as to any of its affirmative defenses, the district court properly denied EA’s motion to strike.