Plaintiffs, Advocates & Attorneys and the Citizen Participation Act (H.R. 4364)
At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern flow. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. – Chief Justice Rehnquist
SLAPPs pose a threat to the vindication of legal rights. Those who speak and act out against powerful interests, including plaintiffs and their attorneys, are at risk of becoming SLAPP targets. Plaintiffs and their attorneys sometimes find themselves facing retaliatory suits in response to their participation in legislative, administrative or judicial proceedings, or public campaigns to draw attention to and secure rights.
Twenty-eight states have some form of anti-SLAPP protection, but these vary widely scope and depth of protection. The remaining states have no legislation, and there is no federal anti-SLAPP law. This patchwork of protection encourages forum shopping and means that a citizens’ First Amendment rights depend on where they speak out, or where they are sued. The proposed Citizen Participation in Government & Society Act will provide a uniform level of protection.
SLAPPs Against Plaintiffs and Advocates
Alzugaray v. Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC311107 (2004).
• In 2003, Erin Brady brought two civil lawsuits alleging that a particular Catholic priest had molested her as a child. Her attorney, Ray Boucher, gave an interview with the Los Angeles Times regarding Brady’s lawsuit. In response, the accused clergy member sued Brady, Ray Boucher and his firm, Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, and SNAP, an advocacy organization for victims of clergy molestation. The clergy member’s lawsuit alleged eight causes of action, including libel based on the accusations in Brady’s two lawsuits, libel based on press releases and a leaflet about the lawsuit distributed by SNAP, and slander based on Boucher’s interview statements. Boucher, his law firm and SNAP filed motions to strike the lawsuit pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP law, which the court granted.
Briggs v. ECHO, 19 Cal. 4th 1106 (1999).
• In 1990, the California housing rights organization Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) assisted an African-American woman in filing a complaint with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and in prosecuting a small claims court action against her landlords. HUD exonerated the landlords, but the tenant prevailed in small claims court. The landlords then filed suit against ECHO, alleging defamation and infliction of emotional distress from comments ECHO made during HUD's investigation, including referring to one landlord as a "racist," and a “a redneck [who] doesn't like women," to a HUD investigator and other persons. The trial court dismissed the defamation suit under California’s anti-SLAPP law, but the appeals court reversed. In 1999, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that the statements made by ECHO were in connection with a government proceeding, and therefore protected.
Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, 117 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2004).
• In 2002, workers at a Forever 21 clothing factory in California worked for months to resolve their grievances against the company through negotiation. After Forever 21 rejected the workers' demands for paid back wages and compliance with labor laws, the workers filed a federal complaint, with the help of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. In response, the head of the company sued 19 individual garment workers and their advocates for libel, slander and other allegations of wrongdoing. A couple months later, the company dropped the individual workers from the suit, but maintained it as against the advocates. The advocates brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. In 2004, a California appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the defamation claims lacked merit, and dismissing them against the advocates.
The Citizen Participation Act protects plaintiffs, their advocates and attorneys by:
1. Providing immunity from civil liability for good faith petitioning activity – speech or conduct intended to secure a government outcome, including testimony before regulatory and administrative bodies;
2. Providing a procedure for quick dismissal of meritless lawsuits arising from petition activity or speech in connection with an issue of public interest; and
3. Providing for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against the SLAPP.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.