Does a reliance on a prior injunction that prohibits a plaintiff from making a statement that is contrary to the anti-SLAPP legislation apply?

^8. The Arudas' reliance on Paradise Hills Associates v. Procel (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1528 is unavailing in the anti-SLAPP context. In that case a homeowner successfully appealed a preliminary injunction that prohibited her from making true statements about the quality of construction in a development, statements that allegedly interfered with sales of additional homes in the development. The court held that the homeowner's speech enjoyed greater First Amendment protection than commercial speech because it related to the public interest by providing consumer information. (Id. at pp. 1534-1536, 1543-1545.) However, Paradise Hills did not involve application of the anti-SLAPP statute, but rather a prior restraint on speech that carries a heavy presumption against its validity. (Id. at pp. 1538-1539.)