## Facts

- Keith A. Dixon, an archaeologist and anthropology professor emeritus at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), publicly criticized archaeological work concerning the “Puvunga site,” a culturally significant area on campus listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Around 1980, CSULB retained Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) to prepare an archaeological report for a proposed Japanese garden project; Dixon wrote a detailed critique calling the report “poorly done” and “biased,” and urged that his critique be forwarded for public review in connection with environmental review.
- In the early 1990s, CSULB proposed a strip shopping center and parking lot on the site and pursued environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including consideration of a negative declaration.
- Dixon sent letters to CSULB officials asserting that the archaeological basis for the negative declaration was error-filled, failed professional standards, and reflected “unprofessional secrecy,” and he reiterated concerns about prior substandard work used to justify development at the site.
- After discussions, CSULB agreed to conduct a cultural review and indicated SRS and its president, Nancy Whitney-Desautels, would not be involved in further work on the project.
- SRS and Whitney-Desautels sued Dixon for libel, slander, and interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage, alleging his statements falsely disparaged SRS and harmed its business relationships.

## Issues

1. Whether Dixon’s letters and statements were acts in furtherance of petition or free-speech rights in connection with a public issue under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.
2. If so, whether SRS made a sufficient evidentiary showing of a probability of prevailing on its defamation and interference claims to defeat a special motion to strike.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and directed the trial court to grant Dixon’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.
- Dixon’s challenged communications were protected activity because they were made in connection with an official proceeding authorized by law—CEQA review—and addressed environmental, cultural, and historic concerns of public interest.
- After Dixon made the required threshold showing, SRS failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing because it did not present adequate evidence that Dixon’s statements were actionable (including falsity and the requisite fault) or otherwise outside protected participation in the CEQA process.
- The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the superior court to vacate its denial order and enter a new order striking the complaint.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 is construed broadly to deter lawsuits brought to chill participation in matters of public significance.
- Protected acts include written or oral statements made in connection with an issue under consideration or review in an official proceeding authorized by law; CEQA review and public comment on environmental documents qualify.
- Anti-SLAPP analysis is burden shifting: (1) the defendant shows the challenged claims arise from protected petitioning or speech activity; (2) the plaintiff must then establish a probability of prevailing with a prima facie evidentiary showing supporting a favorable judgment if credited.
- Where a plaintiff does not produce sufficient evidence supporting essential elements of defamation or interference claims at the second step, the causes of action must be stricken.

## Conclusion

The court held that an academic expert’s criticisms submitted to influence CEQA environmental review of a culturally significant site were protected petitioning and speech under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the plaintiffs’ failure to make a prima facie showing of likely success required striking the lawsuit.


Dixon v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 733, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 687 (Ct. App. 1994)