California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Tour-Sarkissian v. White, A136812, A136874 (Cal. App. 2014):
"[A] defendant in an ordinary private dispute cannot take advantage of the anti-SLAPP statute simply because the complaint contains some references to speech or petitioning activity by the defendant. [Citation.] ['[T]he statute does not accord anti-SLAPP protection to suits arising from any act having any connection, however remote, with an official proceeding'].) . . . [I]t is the principal thrust or gravamen of the plaintiff's cause of action that determines whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies [citation], and when the allegations referring to arguably protected activity are only incidental to a cause of action based essentially on nonprotected activity, collateral allusions to protected activity should not subject the cause of action to the anti-SLAPP statute." (Martinez v. Matabolife Internat., Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 188.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.