California Anti-SLAPP Laws Acts UPEPA

California California CaliforniaAntiSlappActsLaw

California Anti-SLAPP Laws

(Always check currency of statutes)

CCP § 425.16 - Anti-SLAPP Motion

(a) Declaration of purpose; to be construed broadly

(b) Mechanics of the special motion to strike; action subject to motion; burden of proof; pleadings and evidence considered; finding not later useable

(d) Special motion to strike not available against government officials

(e) Things included in right of petition or free speech; statements and submissions to governmental authorities; public interest statements; constitutionally-protected conduct and speech.

(f) Deadlines for filing special motion to strike and for hearing by the court

(g) Stay of discovery pending ruling

(h) Complaint includes cross-complaint

(i) Appealability

(j) Reporting to Judicial Council; transmittal; maintenance of information

CCP § 425.17 - Legislative Findings And Declarations Regarding California Anti-SLAPP Law; Application of § 425.16

(a) Legislature finds abuse of Anti-SLAPP law

(b) Special motion to strike not available where plaintiff seek to enforce important public right; comparative benefit

(d) Exclusions from the exclusions of (b) and (c); dissemination of ideas; certain literary, political or artistic works, non-profits; appealability

CCP § 425.18 - SLAPPBack Actions; Motion To Strike; Limitations Periods; Discovery; Remedies

(a) Legislative purpose and intent

(b) Definitions of SLAPPback and special motion to strike

(d) Procedure on special motions to strike a SLAPPback; deadlines and discretion; scheduling by clerk

(e) Limited discovery rights

(f) Attorney's fees and costs if frivolous or delaying

(g) Appealability of special motion to strike a SLAPPback

(h) Where prior cause of action was illegal

(i) Non-applicability to public entities

Cal.Civ.Code § 47 -- Privileged Publication Or Broadcast

(a) Discharging official duty

(b) In legislative and judicial proceedings; exceptions; with malice or without reasonable cause; intentional destruction of evidence; failure to disclose insurance policy; lis pendens

(d) Fair and true reports in public journals about judicial or other governmental proceedings; exceptions; violates Lawyer Rules of Professional Conduct; breaches court order; violates confidentiality

(e) Fair and true reports of public meetings and publication of matter for public benefit

California Opinions

Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, 2025 WL 2858761 (9th Cir., En Banc, Oct. 9, 2025) Ninth Circuit Interlocutory Appeal Anti-SLAPP

♦ The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, addressed whether a district court’s denial of a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute is immediately appealable. The court overruled its prior precedent, Batzel v. Smith (2003), and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion does not satisfy the requirements of the collateral order doctrine for interlocutory appeal. First, the court found that the anti-SLAPP analysis—which requires determining if the claim arises from protected speech and if the plaintiff has a probability of prevailing—is not "completely separate from the merits" of the underlying action. The analysis involves questions "inextricably intertwined" with the merits, contradicting the separability requirement. Second, the denial is not "effectively unreviewable" on appeal from a final judgment. While delaying review may undermine the anti-SLAPP goal of protecting defendants from the burden of litigation, this interest does not justify immediate appeal under the narrow collateral order exception. The court noted that a successful defendant can still recover attorneys' fees after a final judgment. This ruling unifies the Ninth Circuit’s approach, meaning neither the grant nor the denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable as a matter of right under the collateral order doctrine. The case was remanded to the district court. ♦

California Anti-SLAPP Laws Acts UPEPA