APPELLATE COURT REVERSES DENIAL OF ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

In a unanimous ruling, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District reversed a trial court decision denying OLG’s Anti-SLAPP Motion.

Plaintiffs, two fifth grade public school students, participated in a 4-day school field trip to an outdoor science camp run by OLG’s client. Plaintiffs alleged that camp counsellors discussed preferred pronouns and issues of gender identification with the students. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs stated claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

OLG filed a Special Motion to Strike under the anti-SLAPP statute arguing that Plaintiffs claims arose from the camp counsellors’ exercise of their constitutionally protected right to free speech and that Plaintiffs could not establish their claims have even minimal merit.

In its published opinion, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP Motion. The three-justice appellate court panel unanimously found, on the first prong of the anti-SLAPP test, that Plaintiffs’ claims fall within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute; issues surrounding gender identity are clearly a matter of public interest provide the basis of the liability alleged against OLG’s client.  Finding that the trial court also erred in admitting objectionable hearsay evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded that Plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence to establish even minimal merit on the second prong of the anti-SLAPP test.

Sherri Matta wrote and argued the anti-SLAPP Motion in the trial court.

Mark A. Kressel of Horvitz & Levy wrote and argued the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District