## Facts

- Certified shorthand reporters and reporting agencies competed over “direct contracting,” where reporters or reporter associations obtained exclusive deposition-reporting arrangements with large consumers such as insurance companies.
- In related litigation challenging direct contracting, Sondra Wilcox (a reporter/agency) financially supported the lawsuit and circulated a memorandum urging other reporters to oppose the California Reporting Alliance (CRA) and support the suit.
- The memorandum allegedly stated that agencies were banding together to “permanently put the Alliance to rest,” described the suit as involving “extortion and racketeering,” encouraged reporters to inform attorneys for insurers about the lawsuit, and urged refusal to patronize CRA members.
- CRA members and other reporters filed a cross-complaint against Wilcox alleging defamation and conspiracy to unlawfully restrain trade through an alleged boycott.
- Wilcox filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), asserting the cross-complaint arose from protected petitioning and speech connected to litigation and a public issue.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilcox’s litigation support and advocacy memorandum were acts in furtherance of petition or free-speech rights in connection with a public issue within Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.
2. Whether § 425.16 applies to cross-complaints as well as complaints.
3. Whether cross-complainants made a prima facie evidentiary showing establishing a probability of prevailing on defamation and restraint-of-trade conspiracy claims.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to strike and to enter a new order granting the anti-SLAPP motion.
- The court held the cross-complaint arose from protected petitioning and speech connected to ongoing litigation and an issue of public interest in the reporting industry.
- The court held § 425.16 applies to cross-complaints.
- The court held cross-complainants failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on either defamation or restraint-of-trade conspiracy theories.

## Legal Principles

- Anti-SLAPP analysis under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 is a two-step process: (1) the moving party shows the claim arises from protected petitioning or speech activity connected to a public issue; (2) the opposing party must show a probability of prevailing with competent, admissible evidence.
- Section 425.16 is construed broadly to protect participation in matters of public significance, including communications and support activities related to ongoing litigation.
- The statute applies to “any cause of action” arising from protected activity, including causes pleaded in a cross-complaint.
- To defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the claimant must do more than rely on allegations; it must substantiate a legally sufficient claim with evidence comparable to a summary-judgment-type showing.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Wilcox’s support of and communications about pending litigation concerning direct contracting were protected activity under § 425.16, that the statute reaches cross-complaints, and that the cross-complainants’ evidentiary showing was insufficient to establish a probability of prevailing, requiring the cross-complaint to be stricken.


Wilcox v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 446 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)