TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................2

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT................................................................................3

A. The General Scope of the anti-SLAPP Statute....................................3

B. Contrary to Defendants’ Position That the

anti-SLAPP Statute Has Nearly Unlimited Application,

The Statute and Interpretive Case Law Impose Several

Important Limitations Which Operate as a Bar to

Defendants’ Motion..................................................................................... 5

1. The Matters at Issue in Plaintiff’s

Complaint Are Not Matters of “Public Interest”

Within the Special Meaning of the Anti-SLAPP

Statute, and Thus Plaintiff’s Complaint is not

Properly Subject to Defendants’ Motion to Strike....................................6

2. An anti-SLAPP Motion is Only Proper Against

an Entire Complaint, or an Entire Cause Of Action;

The Court Does Not Need to Parse Entire Cause

of Action If it Finds That Any of the Specific

Allegations Within That Cause of Action are Valid...................................8

C. Plaintiff Brought the Action Against Defendants to Properly

Protect His Repuation From False Statements of Fact by

Defendants With History of Malice Toward Plaintiff, Not to

“Chill” Free Speech Rights of Defendants.................................................9

D. The Defamation Claim Must Survive Defendants’ Motion..................12

1. Defendants’ Remarks Were False Statements of Fact and

Have a Plainly Defamatory Meaning..........................................................12

2. Plaintiff Can Show Actual Malice Here; But at Least

One Federal Trial Court Decision Holds That Such a

Showing Should Not be Necessary For Plaintiff to Survive

an anti-SLAPP Motion..................................................................................17

3. The “Litigation Privilege” is Inapplicable to Defendants’

Remarks.........................................................................................................21

E. The anti-SLAPP Statute Does Not Apply to Plaintiff’s Statutory

Misappropriation Claims; Defendants’ Broad Assertions

of “Unconstitutionality” are Without Adequate Support...........................22

III. CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc.

109 Cal. App. 4^th 1551 (2003)................................................................... 5

ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson

93 Cal. App. 4^th 993 (2001).................................................................... 13

Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc.

105 Cal. App. 4^th 1382 (2003)................................................................... 2

Dodds v. ABC, Inc.

145 F. 3d 1053 (9th Cir.1998)............................................................... 12

Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.

15 Cal. App. 4^th 526 (1993)......................................................................22

Du Charme v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 45

110 Cal. App. 4^th 107 (2003)......................................................................8

Fleishman v. Superior Court

102 Cal. App. 4^th 350 (2002)......................................................................5

Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc.

116 Cal. App. 4th 375 (2004)...................................................................12

Gallagher v. Connell

123 Cal. App. 4^th 1260 (2004)..................................................................12

Gregory v. McDonnell

17 Cal. 3d 596 (1976)...............................................................................13

Hofmann Co. v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

202 Cal. App. 3d 390 (2001)....................................................................14

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

485 U.S. 46 (1988)................................................................................... 13

In re Cassil

37 Cal. App. 4^th 1081 (1995)...................................................................15

Lam v. Ngo

91 Cal. App. 4^th 832 (2001)........................................................................4

Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.

120 Cal. App. 4^th 90 (2004)........................................................................4

M.G. v. Time Warner, Inc.

89 Cal. App. 4^th 623 (2001)......................................................................9

Metabolife Intern., Inc. v. Wornick

72 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (1999)..........................................................4, 17, 21

Metcalf v. U-Haul Intern., Inc.

118 Cal. App. 4^th 1261 (2004)...................................................................3

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.

497 U.S. 1 (1990).....................................................................................13

Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.

109 Cal. App. 4^th 39 (2003).................................................................5, 24

Norse v. Henry Holt & Co.

991 F.2d 563 (9th Cir.1993)....................................................................12

Padres L.P. v. Henderson

114 Cal. App. 4^th 495 (2003).....................................................................5

People v. Gonzalez

12 Cal. 4^th 804 (1996)..............................................................................15

Rivero v. American Federation of State,

County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

105 Cal. App. 4^th 913 (2003)..................................................................... 8

Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. v. Pearl Street

109 Cal. App. 4^th (2003).............................................................................6

Scott v. Metabolife Intern., Inc.

115 Cal. App. 4^th 404 (2004)....................................................................24

Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.

97 Cal. App. 4^th 798 (2002)........................................................................6

Siam v. Kizilbash,

130 Cal. App. 4^th 1563 (2005)....................................................................4

Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress

71 Cal. App. 4^th 226 (1999)........................................................................7

Thomas v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC

189 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2002).............................................. 3, 17

Troy Group v. Tilson

364 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (2005).....................................................................6

U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc.

190 F. 3d 963 (1999)................................................................................9

Walker v. Kiousis

93 Cal. App. 4^th 1432 (2001)...................................................................5

Weinberg v. Feisel

110 Cal. App. 4^th 1122 (2003)............................................................7, 15

Wilbanks v. Wolk

121 Cal. App. 4^th 883 (2004)....................................................................4

STATUTES

Cal. Civ. Code § 3344................................................................................passim

Cal. Civ. Code § 47(d)........................................................................................21

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16..................................................................passim

OTHER

Jury Instructions Regarding Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, CACI 1803...................................................................................................................23