In a hotly litigated case, Kevin Schwin recently defended an individual who was sued for defamation and successfully obtained dismissal of the lawsuit under California’s Anti-SLAPP law.  The Anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, is designed to protect first amendment rights of free speech and petition.  The law requires the defendant to show that s/he is being sued for conduct that comes within the protection of the first amendment.  If this is shown, the burden shifts onto the plaintiff (the person bringing the suit) to show that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the suit.  If a probability of prevailing on the merits is shown, then the case will proceed.  Thus, a SLAPP suit, by definition, is one that lacks merit.

In this particular case, the client had been sued by a boat dealership from whom he purchased a boat.  According to news reports, the boat dealership engaged in a practice of selling warranties to people and never submitting the warranty paperwork to the insurance company.  The boat dealership was raided by the authorities based on a search warrant issued by the Madera County Superior Court.  The suit alleged that the client defamed the boat dealership by telling governmental authorities, the Better Business Bureau, and internet consumers that he had been sold a fake warranty.  The client was a “whistleblower” in every sense.

Kevin Schwin successfully persuaded the court to rule that whistleblowing activities of this kind are protected by the Anti-SLAPP law and that the suit lacked merit.  The boat dealership argued that it was exempt from the Anti-SLAPP law, but the court rejected this argument and dismissed the case.  The client was awarded over $9,000 in costs and attorney’s fees.