Our clients – who were neighboring tenants of plaintiffs (who were also tenants) – were sued for wrongful eviction. Plaintiffs claimed that out clients conspired with the landlord to force plaintiffs out of the building because they are disabled. Our clients were sued for calling animal control to report that plaintiffs’ 160 pound dog was dangerous and participating in the landlord’s attempt to evict plaintiffs in court. We filed a SLAPP motion because these acts are protected by the First Amendment. A SLAPP motion allows a defendant to ask the court to dismiss a case at the outset – if the claims are based on conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. Here, we argued that the report to Animal Control and the eviction action were petitioning the government, which is protected by the First Amendment.
The San Francisco Superior Court denied the motion, ruling that what mattered was not what specific acts our clients were being sued for, but the general nature of plaintiffs’ case, which was harassment of disabled people. The Court of Appeal reversed the order. It held that the Superior Court must consider the specific acts sued for and that those specific acts were reporting to the government and assisting the landlord’s litigation. It then found that the plaintiffs had no evidence showing that the two causes of action had any merit. The Court of Appeal ordered them stricken. Under the SLAPP statute, our clients are entitled to collect their attorney’s fees for the motion, and the appeal, from the plaintiffs.
Read the Court of Appeal’s decision here.
