Special motion to strike
- when available
- burden of proof
Mentioned in
MA Anti-SLAPP Law Applied in the Context of Trademark Challenge
“Our Anti-SLAPP law in Massachusetts is quite limited as these things go, focused narrowly on claims asserted based on one’s ‘exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth.’”
Bibliographic info
Source:
Section 31.150 — Special motion to strike; when available; burden of proof, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors031.html.
Notes of Decisions
Requirement that special motion to strike be treated as motion to dismiss under ORCP 21A incorporates requirement that motion be filed before responsive pleading. Horton v. Western Protector Insurance Co., 217 Or App 443, 176 P3d 419 (2008)
Appellate review of denial of special motion to strike is available only if motion is limited to purely legal issues and disputed or undisputed facts are immaterial. Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 191 P3d 778 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Where plaintiffs requested that defendant television news broadcaster not air footage showing plaintiffs’ likenesses to protect plaintiffs’ safety and defendant did air footage, plaintiffs’ claims arose out of defendant’s conduct in exercising freedom of speech and plaintiffs’ claims were subject to special motion to strike under this section because plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mullen v. Meredith Corporation, 271 Or App 698, 353 P3d 598 (2015)
Where plaintiff’s evidence showed that commissioners of defendant county communicated via electronic mail but quorum of commissioners did not decide or deliberate towards decision, reasonable trier of fact could not find that plaintiff met burden of production under this section that requires plaintiff to establish probability of prevailing on claim for which defendant establishes prima facie case that arose from protected statements, documents or conduct. Handy v. Lane County, 360 Or 605, 385 P3d 1016 (2016)
Where defendants’ attorney issued writs of garnishment to banks, plaintiff’s clients and plaintiff’s legal assistant to collect on judgment debt owed by plaintiff, writs are not statements “submitted in a judicial proceeding” but instead were submitted to nonparties to compel their payment to satisfy judgment, and therefore anti-SLAPP statute does not apply. Baldwin v. Seida, 297 Or App 67, 441 P3d 720 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
In providing court with discretion to allow filing of motion after 60 days, this section does not require court to determine if untimely filing is supported by valid excuse. C.R. v. Eugene School Dist. 4J, 308 Or App 773, 481 P3d 334 (2021)
Up to date