Facts
- Michael Flatley, an entertainer and producer, faced rape allegations by Tyna Marie Robertson arising from an incident in Las Vegas.
- Robertson’s attorney, D. Dean Mauro, sent Flatley’s counsel a demand letter seeking a “seven-figure” payment to avoid litigation.
- The letter threatened to publicize the rape allegations and to contact media outlets and governmental authorities, including tax, immigration, and law-enforcement agencies, if payment was not made.
- In follow-up calls, Mauro reiterated that absent settlement he would publicize the allegations “everywhere in the world” Flatley performed and would pursue complaints to authorities.
- After Flatley refused to pay, Robertson filed a civil lawsuit; Mauro and Robertson later discussed the allegations on television.
- Flatley sued Mauro for civil extortion and related torts based on the demand letter and communications.
- Mauro moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16); the trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
- Whether a defendant may invoke California’s anti-SLAPP statute when the alleged speech or petitioning activity is illegal as a matter of law and therefore not constitutionally protected.
- Whether, on the undisputed record, Mauro’s demand letter and related communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law, placing them outside § 425.16.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Mauro’s anti-SLAPP motion.
- Conduct that is illegal as a matter of law is not an “act in furtherance” of the constitutional rights of speech or petition within the meaning of § 425.16.
- Where illegality is conclusively established (or conceded), the anti-SLAPP motion fails at the first step; the court need not reach the plaintiff’s probability of prevailing.
- Mauro’s communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law because they demanded money coupled with threats to accuse Flatley of a crime, expose alleged disgrace, and initiate governmental investigations.
Legal Principles
- California’s anti-SLAPP statute protects only activity that is within constitutional free-speech and petition guarantees; it does not shield criminal or otherwise unlawful conduct.
- “Illegality as a matter of law” defeats an anti-SLAPP motion at step one only when the illegality is undisputed and conclusively shown by the evidence, not merely alleged.
- Extortion includes obtaining property with consent induced by wrongful use of fear, including threats to accuse a person of a crime, expose disgrace, or report the person to authorities.
- Prelitigation settlement demands and threats to file suit may be protected petitioning activity, but a demand that uses extortionate threats to obtain payment is unprotected.
Conclusion
Because Mauro’s settlement demand relied on extortionate threats that were conclusively established on the record, his communications were unprotected as a matter of law and could not support anti-SLAPP relief, so Flatley’s claims were not subject to being stricken under § 425.16.