California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Wallace v. McCubbin, A127287 (Cal. App. 2011):
cease to do so merely because other claims, whether meritorious or not, have been added to the lawsuit. While a mixed cause of action does not present a situation where the entirety of a complaint was filed solely for the purpose of running up the defendant's costs rather than obtaining relief, the part frivolously targeting protected activity still increases the defendant's costs - not for the purpose of obtaining relief, but for the purpose of punishing the defendant for speaking and petitioning activity, and thus deterring the defendant and others from exercising their First Amendment rights in the future. (See Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 687 [defending against an invalid theory of liability, in addition to a valid theory of liability, may be so burdensome as to impair the defendant's interest in freedom from unreasonable litigation].) Since meritless claims of protected activity should not be insulated by claims of unprotected activity - whether meritorious or not - there is no reason to decide whether claims of unprotected activity have merit.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.