The anti-SLAPP motion seems strange.
Contrary to how the article makes it sound, a SLAPP specifically has to intimidate someone from participating in the political process. It's usually a suit for defamation, e.g. for something a person said in a legislative or judicial proceeding or in connection with an election.
I skimmed IB's filing and did not see any claim that could be construed as connected with public participation by the defendants.
Incidentally, the California anti-SLAPP statute under which the motion was filed does not change whether something is compensable defamation or not; it just shifts the burden of proof in favor of the alleged defamer. The usual rule is that a defendant can have a case thrown out before trial if he shows that the plaintiff has no chance of winning even if everything he says is true. But where the lawsuit is one of these that could chill public participation, the defendant only has to show that the plaintiff probably would lose (again, assuming the facts are all as the plaintiff says).
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds