Adkisson's

Anti-SLAPP

Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

Last updated 2017-06-29

 

- - - - - - - - - - -

Caution: Held unconstitutional in whole or part by Davis v. Cox and Ames v. Pierce County.

- - - - - - - - - - -

 

Wa.Stat. § 4.24.525. Public participation lawsuits--Special motion to strike claim--Damages, costs, attorneys' fees, other relief--Definitions

 

(1) As used in this section:

 

(a) "Claim" includes any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or other judicial pleading or filing requesting relief;

 

(b) "Government" 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;

 

(c) "Moving party" means a person on whose behalf the motion described in subsection (4) of this section is filed seeking dismissal of a claim;

 

(d) "Other governmental proceeding authorized by law" means a proceeding conducted by any board, commission, agency, or other entity created by state, county, or local statute or rule, including any self-regulatory organization that regulates persons involved in the securities or futures business and that has been delegated authority by a federal, state, or local government agency and is subject to oversight by the delegating agency.

 

(e) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, or any other legal or commercial entity;

 

(f) "Responding party" means a person against whom the motion described in subsection (4) of this section is filed.

 

(2) This section applies to any claim, however characterized, that is based on an action involving public participation and petition. As used in this section, an "action involving public participation and petition" includes:

 

(a) Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document submitted, in a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding or other governmental proceeding authorized by law;

 

(b) Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document submitted, in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding or other governmental proceeding authorized by law;

 

(c) Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document submitted, that is reasonably likely to encourage or to enlist public participation in an effort to effect consideration or review of an issue in a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding or other governmental proceeding authorized by law;

 

(d) Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document submitted, in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public concern; or

 

(e) Any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public concern, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition.

 

(3) This section does not apply to any action brought by the attorney general, prosecuting attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor, to enforce laws aimed at public protection.

 

(4)

 

(a) A party may bring a special motion to strike any claim that is based on an action involving public participation and petition, as defined in subsection (2) of this section.

 

(b) A moving party bringing a special motion to strike a claim under this subsection has the initial burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is based on an action involving public participation and petition. If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the responding party to establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim. If the responding party meets this burden, the court shall deny the motion.

 

(c) In making a determination under (b) of this subsection, the court shall consider pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

 

(d) If the court determines that the responding party has established a probability of prevailing on the claim:

 

(i) The fact that the determination has been made and the substance of the determination may not be admitted into evidence at any later stage of the case; and

 

(ii) The determination does not affect the burden of proof or standard of proof that is applied in the underlying proceeding.

 

(e) The attorney general's office or any government body to which the moving party's acts were directed may intervene to defend or otherwise support the moving party.

 

(5)

 

(a) The special motion to strike may be filed within sixty days of the service of the most recent complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. A hearing shall be held on the motion not later than thirty days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. Notwithstanding this subsection, the court is directed to hold a hearing with all due speed and such hearings should receive priority.

 

(b) The court shall render its decision as soon as possible but no later than seven days after the hearing is held.

 

(c) All discovery and any pending hearings or motions in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a special motion to strike under subsection (4) of this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until the entry of the order ruling on the motion. Notwithstanding the stay imposed by this subsection, the court, on motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery or other hearings or motions be conducted.

 

(d) Every party has a right of expedited appeal from a trial court order on the special motion or from a trial court's failure to rule on the motion in a timely fashion.

 

(6)

 

(a) The court shall award to a moving party who prevails, in part or in whole, on a special motion to strike made under subsection (4) of this section, without regard to any limits under state law:

 

(i) Costs of litigation and any reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with each motion on which the moving party prevailed;

 

(ii) An amount of ten thousand dollars, not including the costs of litigation and attorney fees; and

 

(iii) Such additional relief, including sanctions upon the responding party and its attorneys or law firms, as the court determines to be necessary to deter repetition of the conduct and comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

 

(b) If the court finds that the special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award to a responding party who prevails, in part or in whole, without regard to any limits under state law:

 

(i) Costs of litigation and any reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with each motion on which the responding party prevailed;

 

(ii) An amount of ten thousand dollars, not including the costs of litigation and attorneys' fees; and

 

(iii) Such additional relief, including sanctions upon the moving party and its attorneys or law firms, as the court determines to be necessary to deter repetition of the conduct and comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

 

(7) Nothing in this section limits or precludes any rights the moving party may have under any other constitutional, statutory, case or common law, or rule provisions.

 

- - - - - - - - - - -

Caution: Held unconstitutional in whole or part by Davis v. Cox and Ames v. Pierce County.

- - - - - - - - - - -

 

UNIFORM LAWS PROJECT

 

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 http://uniformlaws.org/Committee.aspx?title=Anti-Slapp 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.

 

ARTICLES ON ANTI-SLAPP

 

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

 

UNITED STATES ANTI-SLAPP LAWS

 

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).

 

OTHER INFORMATIONAL WEBSITES BY JAY ADKISSON

 

  • 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] jayad.com or by phone to 702-953-9617 or by fax to 877-698-0678. This website is https://antislapplaws.com