An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because the allegedly false accusation that plaintiff operated a single treatment facility without a required state license was not a matter of public concern and so was not protected speech. The trial court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion in this defamation suit which plaintiff brought after defendant published an article in a weekly electronic addiction/recovery bulletin stating that plaintiff was operating a treatment facility without the required state license. While the e-bulletin was a public forum, the licensure status of a single treatment center was not of sufficient public concern to bring the statement within the protection of CCP § 425.16(e)(3) or (4).
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3 (Moore, J.); December 20, 2016; 2016 WL 7373841