A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. [1]

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

Leckrone filed a cross-complaint against Brown. Probably a SLAPP type suit. On 7/20 Brown motioned to strike each cause of action in the 1st amended cross-complaint.

To be honest, what transpired on 7/22 is confusing. The judge granted the motion to file the one over-length brief in support of the anti-SLAPP motion, or grant a summary judgement based on the pleadings. But it says plaintiff's motion. Brown is the defendant on the cross-complaint. Perhaps filing the anti-SLAPP motion makes Brown the plaintiff???? ie a counter cross-complaint lawsuit????

Separately, the judge filed the basis for his decision. Text not available online. It is not clear whether he is talking the brief or judgement. But why would a judge need to explain a simple granting of the motion to file an over-length brief? To me it sounds like the cross-complaint was killed by the judge, deeming it a SLAPP type lawsuit. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it quite yet.

Perhaps Greg Bailey can comment on it, if he knows. I believe the docs would be available to the public at the courthouse, so there would be no obvious harm. Again, if he knows.

Opty