public issue requirement in California

2015The public issue requirement In Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106 , the Supreme Court held a moving party relying on section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1) and (2), need establish only that the challenged statement was made within or in connection with an official proceeding whether or not it pertained to an issue of public significance: “[P]lainly read, section 425.16 encompasses any cause of action against a person arising from any statement or writing made in, or in connection with an issue under consideration or review by, an official proceeding or body.” (Br

2013(Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 920 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81 ] (Rivero).) In any event, given the lack of definition, “confusion and disagreement about what issues truly possess ‘public’ significance inevitably will arise, thus delaying resolution of section 425.16 motions and wasting precious judicial resources.” (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471 , 969 P.2d 564 ].) Before analyzing Menounos’s disputed statements, we briefly review a few cases in which the pub

2016The presentation indicated the union “was simply reporting the situation of International House, a situation which standing on its own has no public interest.” (Id. at p. 926.) The Rivero court also explained that merely publishing a statement did not convert the statement into a matter of public concern: “If the mere publication of information in a union newsletter distributed to its numerous members were sufficient to make that information a matter of public interest, the public-issue limitation would be substantially eroded, thus seriously undercutting the obvious goal of the Legislature th

2013(Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 920 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81 ] (Rivero).) In any event, given the lack of definition, “confusion and disagreement about what issues truly possess ‘public’ significance inevitably will arise, thus delaying resolution of section 425.16 motions and wasting precious judicial resources.” (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471 , 969 P.2d 564 ].) Before analyzing Menounos’s disputed statements, we briefly review a few cases in which the pub

2026The court determined that the circumstances were “hardly a matter of public interest” because “the only individuals directly involved in and affected by the situation were [the supervisor] and the eight custodians.” (Id. at p. 924.) Other relevant factors in the public issue inquiry include “whether the subject of the speech or activity ‘was a person or entity in the public eye,’ ” “whether the activity ‘occur[red] in the context of an ongoing controversy, dispute or discussion’ ” or “ ‘affect[ed] a community in a manner similar to that of a governmental entity,’ ” (FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVe

2023(See Bonni, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 1020 [Wilson test, as applied to noncommunicative acts, asks whether acts “furthered the [defendants’] speech or petitioning rights because they bore some ‘substantial relationship’ to the [defendants’] ‘ability to [petition or] speak on matters of public concern’ ”].) In fact, defendants’ noncommunicative conduct directly “further[ed]” speech—the report—falling squarely within the coverage of subdivision (e)(1) and (2). (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(4).) As our Supreme Court has repeatedly observed, the anti- SLAPP statute “ ‘ “equate[s] a public issue with the auth

2015The public issue requirement In Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106 , the Supreme Court held a moving party relying on section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1) and (2), need establish only that the challenged statement was made within or in connection with an official proceeding whether or not it pertained to an issue of public significance: “[P]lainly read, section 425.16 encompasses any cause of action against a person arising from any statement or writing made in, or in connection with an issue under consideration or review by, an official proceeding or body.” (Br

2015(Briggs, at pp. 1117-1118; Ben-Shahar v. Pickart (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1051 ) 5 Section 425.16 does not define “public issue” or “issue of public interest,” and “it is doubtful an all-encompassing definition could be provided.” (Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1132 (Weinberg).) “‘Public interest’ within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute has been broadly defined to include, in addition to government matters, ‘“private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a government entity.”’” (Ruiz v. Harbor V

2015(Briggs, at pp. 1117-1118; Ben-Shahar v. Pickart (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1051 ) 5 Section 425.16 does not define “public issue” or “issue of public interest,” and “it is doubtful an all-encompassing definition could be provided.” (Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1132 (Weinberg).) “‘Public interest’ within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute has been broadly defined to include, in addition to government matters, ‘“private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a government entity.”’” (Ruiz v. Harbor V

2015The public issue requirement In Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106 , the Supreme Court held a moving party relying on section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1) and (2), need establish only that the challenged statement was made within or in connection with an official proceeding whether or not it pertained to an issue of public significance: “[P]lainly read, section 425.16 encompasses any cause of action against a person arising from any statement or writing made in, or in connection with an issue under consideration or review by, an official proceeding or body.” (Br

2015(Briggs, at pp. 1117-1118; Ben-Shahar v. Pickart (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1051 ) 5 Section 425.16 does not define “public issue” or “issue of public interest,” and “it is doubtful an all-encompassing definition could be provided.” (Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1132 (Weinberg).) “‘Public interest’ within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute has been broadly defined to include, in addition to government matters, ‘“private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a government entity.”’” (Ruiz v. Harbor V

2012(Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1036 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 ].) One of these categories is section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3), which describes an “ ‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ ” as including: “(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” (Italics added.) As to the question of whether the alleged defamatory statements were made in a place open to

2012(Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1036 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 ].) One of these categories is section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3), which describes an “ ‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ ” as including: “(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” (Italics added.) As to the question of whether the alleged defamatory statements were made in a place open to

2011The Trial Court Must Redetermine Defendants’ Entitlement to Attorney Fees and the Amount of Any Fee Award A defendant prevailing on a special motion to strike is entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs. (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 17 P.3d 735 ].) The defendant can recover only its fees and costs in connection with the motion, not the entire action.

2011The Trial Court Must Redetermine Defendants’ Entitlement to Attorney Fees and the Amount of Any Fee Award A defendant prevailing on a special motion to strike is entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs. (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 17 P.3d 735 ].) The defendant can recover only its fees and costs in connection with the motion, not the entire action.

2003(Ibid.) If the defendant meets his or her burden of showing that the activity is protected, then the court determines whether the plaintiff has carried his or her burden of showing that there is a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1); Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 88.) On appeal, we independently review whether section 425.16 applies and whether the plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits.