The Eye Machine, LLC v. Wasserman, Comden etc. CA2
Defendants, two law firms and private investigator, moved to strike the complaint by plaintiff, a manufacturing company, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16, the “anti-SLAPP” statute. The trial court denied their motion, ruling that defendants failed to make the requisite threshold showing that the challenged causes of action arose from protected activity.
Defendants appeal the order, contending plaintiff’s claims arose out of statements that are protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, because (1) the statements were made during post-judgment asset discovery that was in the course of and in connection with litigation, within the meaning of section 425.16, subsections (e)(1) and (2); and (2) the statements concerned a person in the public eye whose life and controversies were a subject of public interest, within the meaning of section 425.16, subsection (e)(4).
Comments on The Eye Machine, LLC v. Wasserman, Comden etc. CA2