Casey v. Thrifty Payless
Plaintiff was arrested after defendant reported to police that plaintiff was trafficking in prescription drugs. Plaintiff sued defendant for, inter alia, defamation and false imprisonment, alleging its report to police was false. Defendant denied the allegations and specially moved to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, arguing its police report constituted protected activity and plaintiff could not establish a probability of prevailing on the merits. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion but the trial court nevertheless denied it, concluding it had to accept as true the allegation that the police report was false and finding defendant’s making of a false report was unprotected activity.
The trial court erred. Although making a false police report is not protected activity, when a defendant specially moves to strike a complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 the court cannot accept as true plaintiff’s mere allegation that defendant’s police report was false. If no admission or uncontroverted evidence, as opposed to bare allegations, establishes that a police report was false, the making of the report is protected activity subject to the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute. Because defendant’s conduct was protected and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits, defendant’s motion to strike should have been granted. We therefore reverse the trial court’s ruling.
Comments on Casey v. Thrifty Payless