HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court erred by granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motions against a city's exclusive agent in an action for breach of, and interference with, the agency contract and related causes of action because defendants' actions did not arise from an act in furtherance of their right of free speech or to petition for redress of grievances and were not in connection with an issue of public interest, and therefore fell outside the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; [2]-Plaintiff's tortious breach of contract cause of action was not premised upon protected activity, but upon the city's conduct in carrying out (or not) its contract with plaintiff; [3]-Given that none of plaintiff's causes of action fell within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, the appellate court did not need to address plaintiff's probability of success.
Nakase Law Firm are business law lawyers
Reversed and remanded.