I am a defendant in a CA lawsuit LA county, where the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming among other things that i filed a malicious lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Also they allege abuse of process and defamation citing the PA complaint as containing the defamatory statements.
Certainly sounds like a SLAPP. A claim for Malicious Prosecution always falls under the anti-SLAPP statute, because it is by definition a lawsuit against someone for engaging in litigation. That does not mean that every malicious prosecution action can be disposed of with an anti-SLAPP motion, but the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis will be met. It will then turn on whether the plaintiff can satisfy the elements of that claim. Abuse of Process is almost always a SLAPP, and requires a showing that the process was used for an unintended purpose. For example, if someone makes a bogus claim that they own your residence, and files an action for quiet title, that is not an abuse of process, because that is the proper mechanism to make such a claim. That is not to say you would not have other claims you could make against the fraudster, but abuse of process would not be one of them. And finally, California’s litigation privilege applies even when the original action was in another jurisdiction. If you are being sued for defamation for statements contained in the PA complaint, that is a clear SLAPP. Based on your brief summary, subject of course to a detailed review of the facts and the complaint, you should respond to the complaint with an anti-SLAPP motion
I am a defendant in a CA lawsuit LA county, where the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming among other things that i filed a malicious lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Also they allege abuse of process and defamation citing the PA complaint as containing the defamatory statements.
Certainly sounds like a SLAPP. A claim for Malicious Prosecution always falls under the anti-SLAPP statute, because it is by definition a lawsuit against someone for engaging in litigation. That does not mean that every malicious prosecution action can be disposed of with an anti-SLAPP motion, but the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis will be met. It will then turn on whether the plaintiff can satisfy the elements of that claim. Abuse of Process is almost always a SLAPP, and requires a showing that the process was used for an unintended purpose. For example, if someone makes a bogus claim that they own your residence, and files an action for quiet title, that is not an abuse of process, because that is the proper mechanism to make such a claim. That is not to say you would not have other claims you could make against the fraudster, but abuse of process would not be one of them. And finally, California’s litigation privilege applies even when the original action was in another jurisdiction. If you are being sued for defamation for statements contained in the PA complaint, that is a clear SLAPP. Based on your brief summary, subject of course to a detailed review of the facts and the complaint, you should respond to the complaint with an anti-SLAPP motion
Hey Aaron. Just wanted to thank you for this website, it’s very useful!
– an aspiring lawyer and current legal assistant in Orange County trying to figure out how to protect our client from anti-SLAPP action.
Unfortunately all of our cases are in federal court, so it’s a little more complicated.
Thank you for the kind words.
Federal cases are much more complicated, because the courts apply the anti-SLAPP scheme in a patchwork fashion.