EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONSUMER CAUSE, INC., Defendant and Respondent., 29 Cal. 4th 53

Summary

Plaintiff alleged that defendant's notice to sue for alleged violations of Cal. Proposition 65 failed to comply with the California Code of Regulations. The issue in this case was whether defendant, in order to obtain a dismissal of plaintiff's SLAPP suit, had to demonstrate that the action was brought with the intent to chill defendant's exercise of constitutional speech or petition rights. The instant court concluded not. Defendant, having satisfied its initial burden under the anti-SLAPP statute of demonstrating that plaintiff's action against defendant was one arising from protected activity under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1), faced no additional requirement of proving plaintiff's subjective intent. There simply was nothing in the statute requiring a court to engage in an inquiry as to plaintiff's subjective motivations before it could determine whether the anti-SLAPP statute was applicable. Judicial imposition of an intent-to-chill proof requirement would have contravened ...