Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

Last updated 2017-06-14


HRS § 634F-1. Definitions


As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:


“Governmental body” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, employee, agent, or other person acting under color of law of the United States, a state, or subdivision of a state or other public authority.


“Judicial claim” or “claim” includes any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or other judicial pleading or filing requesting relief.


“Lacks substantial justification” means substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious.


“Motion” includes any motion to dismiss, for summary judgment, for judgment on the pleadings or to strike, a demurrer, or any other judicial pleading filed to dispose of a judicial claim.


“Moving party” means any person on whose behalf the motion described in section 634F-2 is filed seeking dismissal of the judicial claim.


“Person” includes any individual, corporation, association, organization, partnership, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or other legal entity.


“Public participation” means any oral or written testimony submitted or provided to a governmental body during the course of a governmental proceeding.


“Responding party” means any person against whom the motion described in section 634F-2 is filed.


“SLAPP” means a strategic lawsuit against public participation and refers to a lawsuit that lacks substantial justification or is interposed for delay or harassment and that is solely based on the party’s public participation before a governmental body.


HRS § 634F-2. Required procedures; motion


Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, including rules of court, upon the filing of any motion to dispose of a claim in a judicial proceeding on the grounds that the claim is based on, relates to, or involves public participation and is a SLAPP lawsuit:


(1) The motion shall be treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings shall be excluded by the court, and the court shall expedite the hearing of the motion;


(2) The moving party shall have a right:


(A) To an immediate appeal from a court order denying the motion; and


(B) To file an application for a writ of mandamus if the court fails to rule on the motion in an expedited fashion;


(3) Discovery shall be suspended, pending decision on the motion and appeals;


(4) The responding party shall:


(A) Without leave of court, have seven days to amend its pleadings to be pled with specificity, and shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the supporting pleader’s knowledge; and


(B) Have the burden of proof and persuasion on the motion;


(5) The court shall make its determination based upon the allegations contained in the pleadings;


(6) The court shall grant the motion and dismiss the judicial claim, unless the responding party has demonstrated that more likely than not, the respondent’s allegations do not constitute a SLAPP lawsuit as defined in section 634F-1;


(7) Any governmental body to which the moving party’s acts were directed or the attorney general in the case of a state governmental body, or the county attorney or corporation counsel in the case of a county governmental body may intervene to defend or otherwise support the moving party in the lawsuit;


(8) The court shall award a moving party who prevails on the motion, without regard to any limits under state law:


(A) Actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater;


(B) Costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ and expert witness fees, incurred in connection with the motion; and


(C) Such additional sanctions upon the responding party, its attorneys, or law firms as the court determines shall be sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct and comparable conduct by others similarly situated; and


(9) Any person damaged or injured by reason of a claim filed in violation of their rights under this chapter may seek relief in the form of a claim for actual or compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, from the person responsible.


HRS § 634F-3. Relationship to other laws


Nothing in this chapter shall limit or preclude any rights the moving party may have under any other constitutional, statutory, case or common law, or rule provisions.


HRS § 634F-4. Rule of construction


This chapter shall be construed liberally to fully effectuate its purposes and intent.




Drafting Committee for Uniform Anti-SLAPP Act (or whatever it ends up being called), began project 2017 and hopes to submit final Uniform Act by 2020 -- see and note that any interested person can register as an Observer and attend and participate in meetings. The author of this website, Jay D. Adkisson, is the American Bar Association's Business Law Section Adviser to this Committee, and the originator of this Uniform Law Commission project.




2017.01.13 ... Minnesota Court Of Appeals Boots Clear And Convincing Anti-SLAPP Burden Of Proof

2015.8.29 ... A Call For A Uniform Anti-SLAPP Act




Arizona  ..... A.R.S. § 12-751, et seq.


Alabama ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Alaska ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Arkansas  ..... A.C.A. § 16-63-502, et seq.


California  ..... C.C.P. § 425.16, et seq.


Colorado ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Connecticut ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Delaware  ..... 10 Del.C. § 8136, et seq.


Florida  ..... F.S. § 768.295


Georgia  ..... Ga.C. § 9-11-11.1.


Hawaii  ..... HRS § 634F-1, et seq.


Idaho ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Illinois  ..... 735 ILCS 110/1, et seq.


Indiana  ..... I.C. § 34-7-7-1, et seq.


Iowa ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Kansas  ..... Kan.Stat. § 60-5320


Kentucky ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Louisiana  ..... C.C.P. Art. 971


Maine  ..... 14 Me.R.S. § 556


Maryland  ..... MD Code, Courts & Jud. Proceedings § 5-807


Massachusetts  ..... M.G.L. 231 § 59H


Michigan ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Minnesota  ..... Mn.Stat. § 554.01, et seq.


Mississippi ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Missouri  ..... Mo.Stat. § 537.528


Montana ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Nebraska  ..... Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-21, 242, et seq.


Nevada  ..... N.R.S. § 41.635, et seq.



New Hampshire ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


New Jersey ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


New Mexico  ..... N.Mex.Stat. § 38-2-9.1, et seq.


New York  ..... N.Y.Civ.Rights.L. § 70-a.


North Carolina ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


North Dakota ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Ohio ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Oklahoma  ..... Okla.Stat. § 12-1430, et seq.


Oregon  ..... O.R.S. § 31.150, et seq.


Pennsylvania  ..... 27 Pa.C.S.A. § 7707.


Rhode Island  ..... R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-33-1, et seq.


South Carolina ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


South Dakota ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Tennessee  ..... Tenn.Stat. § 4-21-1001, et seq.


Texas  ..... Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 27.001, et seq.


Utah  ..... Utah Code § 78B-6-1401, et seq.


Vermont  ..... 12 V.S. § 1041.


Virginia ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Washington  ..... Wa.Stat. § 4.24.525.


West Virginia ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Wisconsin ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


Wyoming ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


District of Columbia  ..... D.C.St. § 16-5501, et seq.


Guam ..... 7 G.C.A. § 17101, et seq.


Puerto Rico ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


U.S. Virgin Islands ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.


FEDERAL LEGISLATION: Speak Free Act of 2015 (not enacted, presumed dead).




  • Jay Adkisson - More about Jay D. Adkisson, background, books, articles, speaking appearances.


  • Captive Insurance Companies - Licensed insurance companies formed by the parent organization to handle the insurance and risk management needs of the business, by the author of the best-selling book on the topic: Adkisson's Captive Insurance Companies.


  • Asset Protection Book - The all-time best-selling book on asset protection planning by Jay Adkisson and Chris Riser.


  • Judgment Collection - An explanation of common creditor remedies, strategies and tactics to enforce a judgment, including a discussion of common debtor asset protection strategies.


  • Voidable Transactions - Discussion of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (a/k/a 2014 Revision of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act) and fraudulent transfer law in general.


  • Private Retirement Plans - An exploration of a unique creditor exemption allowed under California law which can be very beneficial but is often misused.


  • Charging Orders - The confusing remedy against a debtor's interest in an LLC or partnership is explained in reference to the Uniform Partnership Act, the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act.


  • Protected Series LLCs - An examination of the single most complex statutory legal structure yet created, with particular reference to the Uniform Protected Series Act of 2017.


  • California Enforcement of Judgments Law - Considers the topic of judgment enforcement in California, including the California Enforcement of Judgments Law and other laws related to California creditor-debtor issues.


© 2019 by Jay D. Adkisson. All Rights Reserved. No claim to original government works. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction. Other. Questions about this website should be directed to jay [at] or by phone to 702-953-9617 or by fax to 877-698-0678. This website is