Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2022-01280027, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Motion for SLAPP

Defendant Nicholas G. Bass’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint [anti-SLAPP] is DENIED.

The Two-Step Anti-SLAPP Analysis

Anti-SLAPP motions are evaluated through a two-step process. Initially, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims “aris[e] from” protected activity in which the defendant has engaged. CCP 426.15(b) [defining protected activity]; Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 21; Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 66–67  If the defendant carries its burden, the plaintiff must then demonstrate the claims have at least “minimal merit.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384  

Here, the speech alleged plaintiff Huie is a false report of criminal activity to the police.  [Complaint, ¶9

The Complaint does not allege protected speech

After a careful review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that the speech alleged is not protected speech within the meaning of CCP §425.16.  A false report to the police is not constitutionally protected speech.  Illegal speech is not constitutionally protected speech.  [Flatly v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 328  Making a false police report is illegal in CA.  [Penal Code §148.5] 

Because defendant has not shown the speech was protected, the Court is not required to address the “minimal merit” of plaintiff’s allegations.

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.  Plaintiff has not shown that this Motion was “frivolous” or brought “solely to cause unnecessary delay.  [CCP §425.16(c)(1)]

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.