ANTI-SLAPP SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE / DISMISS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Statement of Facts
4. Legal Standard
5. Argument — Step One: Protected Activity
6. Argument — Step Two: Probability of Prevailing
7. Request for Attorneys' Fees
8. Request for Discovery Stay
9. Conclusion and Prayer
10. Signature Block

I. CAPTION

IN THE [________________________________] COURT OF [________________________________]

COUNTY OF [________________________________]

Case No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________], Plaintiff,

v.

[________________________________], Defendant(s).

DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE / DISMISS UNDER [________________________________] (ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE)

Hearing Date: [__/__/____]
Time: [________________________________]
Department / Courtroom: [________________________________]

II. INTRODUCTION

Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant") respectfully moves this Court for an order striking / dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (or the following causes of action: [________________________________]) pursuant to [________________________________] (cite applicable state anti-SLAPP statute).

This action is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP"). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to silence Defendant's constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public interest. The challenged statements constitute:

• ☐ Speech in a public forum on an issue of public interest
• ☐ Speech in connection with an issue under review by a governmental body
• ☐ Written or oral statements made in connection with judicial or official proceedings
• ☐ Exercise of the right of petition
• ☐ Other protected activity: [________________________________]

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Plaintiff filed this action on [__/__/____], asserting claims for [________________________________].

2. The claims arise from the following conduct by Defendant: [________________________________].

3. The conduct at issue constitutes protected speech/petitioning activity because: [________________________________].

4. The public interest at stake is: [________________________________].

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Anti-SLAPP statutes employ a two-step burden-shifting analysis:

Step One (Defendant's Burden): The moving party must demonstrate that the challenged claim arises from an act in furtherance of the defendant's right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. See [________________________________] (cite controlling state statute or case).

Step Two (Plaintiff's Burden): If the moving party meets this threshold, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits. See [________________________________].

The court considers "the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based." [________________________________] (cite statute).

V. ARGUMENT — STEP ONE: PROTECTED ACTIVITY

A. The Claims Arise from Protected Activity

5. Defendant's speech/conduct falls within the statutory definition of protected activity under [________________________________] because:

a. [________________________________]

b. [________________________________]

c. [________________________________]

B. The Gravamen of the Complaint Targets Protected Speech

6. Although Plaintiff may characterize the claims as [________________________________], the gravamen — the principal thrust — of each challenged cause of action is Defendant's protected expression. See [________________________________].

• ☐ The defamation claim targets Defendant's statements about [________________________________]
• ☐ The tortious interference claim targets Defendant's communications regarding [________________________________]
• ☐ The [________________________________] claim targets Defendant's exercise of [________________________________]

VI. ARGUMENT — STEP TWO: PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING

7. Even if the Court reaches Step Two, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing because:

A. The Statements Are Protected Opinion, Not Actionable Fact

• ☐ The challenged statements are expressions of opinion protected by the First Amendment. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).

B. The Statements Are True

• ☐ Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. The statements are substantially true because: [________________________________].

C. Privilege Applies

• ☐ The statements are subject to [________________________________] privilege (absolute / qualified / fair report / litigation).

D. Plaintiff Cannot Prove Fault

• ☐ Plaintiff is a public figure and cannot establish actual malice. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
• ☐ Plaintiff cannot establish even negligence because: [________________________________].

E. Plaintiff Cannot Prove Damages

• ☐ Plaintiff's claims require proof of special damages, which have not been adequately alleged.

VII. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

8. Under [________________________________] (cite fee-shifting provision of anti-SLAPP statute), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

9. Defendant requests that, upon granting this motion, the Court award Defendant attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established by subsequent motion or declaration.

VIII. REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY STAY

10. Pursuant to [________________________________] (cite discovery-stay provision), all discovery in this action should be stayed pending resolution of this motion.

• ☐ Discovery stay is automatic upon filing under the applicable statute
• ☐ Discovery stay requires a court order — Defendant requests such an order

IX. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant this Special Motion to Strike / Dismiss;

B. Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (or the specifically challenged causes of action) with prejudice;

C. Stay all discovery pending resolution of this motion;

D. Award Defendant reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

E. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

X. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for Defendant
State Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________] (Firm Name)
[________________________________] (Address)
[________________________________] (City, State, ZIP)
[________________________________] (Telephone)
[________________________________] (Email)

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Institute for Free Speech, "Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card"
• Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) (Uniform Law Commission, 2020)
• Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide