A often-used legal defense against defamation actions is something called a “Special Motion to Strike” or in legal parlance, a “SLAPP” motion. It is used in California and some other states to invalidate lawsuits that potentially impact First Amendment rights to free speech. It essentially is a preliminary hearing of the facts by the judge who, if he thinks that I will probably win, will reject the motions and order the case to trial. I’ve used it in the past against companies that sought to sue UCAN for statements we made about their customer policies. In this case, Aguirre and UCAN have attempted to use it against me.
I filed a response to both of these defendants’ motions. The responses contain most all of the relevant facts that I would prove at a trial, in the event that there was a trial. Hearings on the motions will be on August 30th and September 6th after which the judge is expected to render a written decision as to whether the cases will proceed or not. The good news is that if the judge rejects the UCAN and/or Aguirre motion, then it indicates the likely outcome of a trial on the same issues.
Here are some of the documents filed in response to the UCAN SLAPP Motion (there are a number of declarations and exhibits that I’ve not uploaded yet due to their size):
And the following are responses filed with the court in response to the Michael Aguirre SLAPP motion:
var _gaq = _gaq || ; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-39522080-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);