## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299 (Cal. 2006)