What the Court Said: Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied
The court’s ruling didn’t come lightly. While some of Susan’s emails were initially protected, others were found to lack sufficient legal protection. This allowed Robert to continue with his DVRO petition. The decision underscores that free speech defenses don’t extend to actions that inflict harm or interfere with an individual’s well-being or livelihood, particularly in domestic cases where the threshold for protection can differ significantly.
For Robert, the denial of Susan’s anti-SLAPP motion means he can now proceed with his DVRO petition and seek additional protections against Susan’s alleged harassment. And on the legal costs front, the court ruled that he could recover reasonable costs on appeal and petition for attorney fees at the trial level.
Costs and Consequences of Unsuccessful Anti-SLAPP Motions
In this case, the court also set an important precedent for financial accountability. By denying the anti-SLAPP motion, the court opened the door for Robert to petition for attorney’s fees and legal costs—a potentially hefty bill for Susan. This outcome illustrates the risks for defendants when they assert free speech defenses unsuccessfully in DVRO cases.
