12-751. Strategic actions against public participation; motion to dismiss or quash; definitions
A. In any legal action that involves a person's lawful exercise of the right of petition, the right of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to freely associate or the right to peaceably assemble pursuant to the United States Constitution or Arizona Constitution, the person other than a state actor or an intervenor may file a motion to dismiss or quash the action under this section.
B. A person who files a motion pursuant to subsection A of this section has the burden of establishing prima facie proof that the legal action was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. The moving person may submit evidence based on the record, a sworn affidavit or other evidence that is submitted with the motion to dismiss or quash. A party is not required to file a response to a motion filed pursuant to subsection A of this section unless and until the court finds that the moving party has established the prima facie proof and orders the party to file a response. The court shall grant the motion unless one of the following applies:
1. If the responding party is a state actor, the responding party shows that the legal action on which the motion is based is justified by clearly established law and that the responding party did not act in order to deter, prevent or retaliate against the moving party's exercise of constitutional rights. A state actor may satisfy the requirements of this paragraph by doing any of the following:
(a) Establishing that the person who initiated and conducted an investigation that resulted in the legal action and that made the decision to pursue the legal action was unaware of the movant's lawful exercise of the constitutional right.
(b) Establishing that the state actor has a consistent practice of pursuing similar legal actions against similarly situated persons who did not lawfully exercise constitutional rights.
(c) Producing any other evidence that the court finds sufficient.
2. If the responding party is not a state actor, the responding party shows that the legal action on which the motion is based is justified by existing law or supported by a reasonable argument for extending or modifying existing law.
C. In making its determination, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing or consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating facts on which the liability, defense or action is based.
D. The motion to dismiss or quash may be filed within sixty days after the service of the complaint or other document on which the motion is based or, in the court's discretion, at any later time on terms that the court deems proper, including a later time after there is actual notice of a party's misconduct. If the court finds that prima facie proof has been established as prescribed in subsection B of this section, the court, if possible, shall conduct an expedited hearing on the motion.
E. Unless a court rule specifically provides otherwise, all discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed on a finding of prima facie proof as prescribed in subsection B of this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. Notwithstanding this subsection, the court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted.
F. If the court grants the motion to dismiss or quash, the court may award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney fees, including those incurred for the motion. If the court finds that a motion to dismiss or quash is frivolous or solely intended to delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party on the motion. For the purposes of this subsection, "costs" means all costs that are reasonably incurred and includes filing fees, record preparation and document copying fees, documented time away from employment to confer with counsel or attend case related proceedings, expert witness fees, travel expenses and any other costs that the court deems appropriate.
G. If the court denies the motion to dismiss or quash, the denial and the court's findings in support of the denial are not admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and the burden of proof or degree of proof that is otherwise applicable is not affected by the findings in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.
H. If the court determines that the moving party has established prima facie proof as prescribed in subsection B of this section, an order granting or denying a motion filed pursuant to this section is appealable pursuant to section 12-2101.
I. This article does not:
1. Affect, limit or preclude the right of the moving party to any remedy otherwise authorized by law.
2. Create any privileges or immunities or otherwise affect, limit or preclude any privileges or immunities authorized by law.
3. Limit or preclude a legislative or executive body or a public agency from enforcing the rules of procedure and rules of order of the body or agency.
J. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Legal action":
(a) Means any of the following:
(i) Any civil action, claim, cross-claim or counterclaim for damages other than nominal damages.
(ii) Any criminal prosecution, except for a drug trafficking offense included in title 13, chapter 34 or 34.1, a riot or a serious offense or violent or aggravated felony as defined in section 13-706.
(iii) Any written investigative demand pursuant to section 38-431.06 or other compulsory legal process or any regulatory or administrative action by a state actor.
(b) Does not include a motion filed pursuant to subsection A of this section.
2. "State actor" means any of the following:
(a) This state and any county, city, town or political subdivision of this state.
(b) Any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council or committee of an entity included in subdivision (a) of this paragraph.
(c) Any officer, employee or other agent of an entity included in subdivision (a) of this paragraph who is acting in the officer's, employee's or agent's official capacity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case:
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton, 506 P.3d 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton, 506 P.3d 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 24× “§ 12-751(1) because their statements were not “[m]ade in connection with an issue that [was] under consideration or review” and “for the purpose of influencing a governmental action, decision or result.”
Krimbill v. Talarico, 417 P.3d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-751 -- 12-752 (2006), protecting "[s]tatements that are .”
Tennenbaum v. Arizona City Sanitary Dist., 799 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 9× “A.R.S. § 12-751, Sec. 2(C). When the legislature accomplishes that balancing by specifying criteria that must be met to invoke the protections of the statute, this Court has no authority to re-write or restate the criteria.”
Avid Telecom LLC v. Frankel, No. 4:22-cv-00558 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023).
· cites it 14× “19 Before the Court is Frankel's "Second Motion to Dismiss Case Under Arizona's 20 Anti-SLAPP Statute A.R.S. § 12-751," filed August 8. Doc. 66 ("MTD").”
Mohiuddin v. Stern, No. 2:22-cv-00038 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022).
· cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 12-751(1). If a legal action is based on 15 conduct that meets this definition, the statute states that a court “shall” grant a motion to 16 dismiss unless the plaintiff shows that “the moving party’s exercise of the right of 17 petition did not contain any reasonable…”
Potter v. Arizona House, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0213 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2024).
· cites it 7× “1997). Under A.R.S. § 12-349(A), the court must assess attorney’s fees and expenses against a party that brings a claim without substantial justification or mainly for delay or harassment.”
Auto Junction v. Kaluzhin, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0091 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2026).
· cites it 4× “§ 12-341; Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21. CONCLUSION ¶23 Affirmed.”
Aguilar v. Eick, 344 A.3d 263 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025).
“We recognize that, with respect to the first prong of the legal standard set forth in § 53-196a (e) (3), the moving party bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ‘‘the opposing party’s complaint .”
Riedel v. Fuentes, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0171 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2019).
· cites it 2× “145 , 147, ¶ 7 (2017). ¶11 Riedel's sole argument in her opening brief is that Fuentes' statements did not fall within the subsection (b) of the definition because 4 they were not "made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by the San Luis City Council.”
True North v. Lai, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0528 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, immediately following the public’s remarks, the Council members spoke and then voted to deny the citizen’s petition but grant the Council member’s motion to accept the private donation.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(1): 4 cases
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton, 506 P.3d 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-751(1) because their statements were not “[m]ade in connection with an issue that [was] under consideration or review” and “for the purpose of influencing a governmental action, decision or result.”
Tennenbaum v. Arizona City Sanitary Dist., 799 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 12-751, Sec. 2(C). When the legislature accomplishes that balancing by specifying criteria that must be met to invoke the protections of the statute, this Court has no authority to re-write or restate the criteria.”
Mohiuddin v. Stern, No. 2:22-cv-00038 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022).
“A.R.S. § 12-751(1). If a legal action is based on 15 conduct that meets this definition, the statute states that a court “shall” grant a motion to 16 dismiss unless the plaintiff shows that “the moving party’s exercise of the right of 17 petition did not contain any reasonable…”
True North v. Lai, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0528 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019).
“Indeed, immediately following the public’s remarks, the Council members spoke and then voted to deny the citizen’s petition but grant the Council member’s motion to accept the private donation.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(1)(a): 2 cases
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton, 506 P.3d 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-751(1) because their statements were not “[m]ade in connection with an issue that [was] under consideration or review” and “for the purpose of influencing a governmental action, decision or result.”
Mohiuddin v. Stern, No. 2:22-cv-00038 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022).
“A.R.S. § 12-751(1). If a legal action is based on 15 conduct that meets this definition, the statute states that a court “shall” grant a motion to 16 dismiss unless the plaintiff shows that “the moving party’s exercise of the right of 17 petition did not contain any reasonable…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(1)(b): 1 case
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton, 506 P.3d 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-751(1) because their statements were not “[m]ade in connection with an issue that [was] under consideration or review” and “for the purpose of influencing a governmental action, decision or result.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(1)(c): 1 case
Mohiuddin v. Stern, No. 2:22-cv-00038 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022).
“A.R.S. § 12-751(1). If a legal action is based on 15 conduct that meets this definition, the statute states that a court “shall” grant a motion to 16 dismiss unless the plaintiff shows that “the moving party’s exercise of the right of 17 petition did not contain any reasonable…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(2): 2 cases
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton, 506 P.3d 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-751(1) because their statements were not “[m]ade in connection with an issue that [was] under consideration or review” and “for the purpose of influencing a governmental action, decision or result.”
Tennenbaum v. Arizona City Sanitary Dist., 799 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 12-751, Sec. 2(C). When the legislature accomplishes that balancing by specifying criteria that must be met to invoke the protections of the statute, this Court has no authority to re-write or restate the criteria.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(A): 3 cases
Potter v. Arizona House, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0213 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2024).
“1997). Under A.R.S. § 12-349(A), the court must assess attorney’s fees and expenses against a party that brings a claim without substantial justification or mainly for delay or harassment.”
Avid Telecom LLC v. Frankel, No. 4:22-cv-00558 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023).
“19 Before the Court is Frankel's "Second Motion to Dismiss Case Under Arizona's 20 Anti-SLAPP Statute A.R.S. § 12-751," filed August 8. Doc. 66 ("MTD").”
Auto Junction v. Kaluzhin, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0091 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2026).
“§ 12-341; Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21. CONCLUSION ¶23 Affirmed.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(B): 1 case
Potter v. Arizona House, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0213 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2024).
“1997). Under A.R.S. § 12-349(A), the court must assess attorney’s fees and expenses against a party that brings a claim without substantial justification or mainly for delay or harassment.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(B)(2): 1 case
Avid Telecom LLC v. Frankel, No. 4:22-cv-00558 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023).
“19 Before the Court is Frankel's "Second Motion to Dismiss Case Under Arizona's 20 Anti-SLAPP Statute A.R.S. § 12-751," filed August 8. Doc. 66 ("MTD").”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(E): 1 case
Avid Telecom LLC v. Frankel, No. 4:22-cv-00558 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023).
“19 Before the Court is Frankel's "Second Motion to Dismiss Case Under Arizona's 20 Anti-SLAPP Statute A.R.S. § 12-751," filed August 8. Doc. 66 ("MTD").”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-751(l)(a): 1 case
Tennenbaum v. Arizona City Sanitary Dist., 799 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 12-751, Sec. 2(C). When the legislature accomplishes that balancing by specifying criteria that must be met to invoke the protections of the statute, this Court has no authority to re-write or restate the criteria.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.