California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Putnam v. South Coast Emergency Vehicle Serv., E051645, Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1001649 (Cal. App. 2012):
"'"Conduct that would otherwise come within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute does not lose its coverage . . . simply because it is alleged to have been unlawful or unethical." [Citations.] An exception to the use of section 425.16 applies only if a "defendant concedes, or the evidence conclusively establishes, that the assertedly protected speech or petition activity was illegal as a matter of law." [Citation.]'" (Cabral v. Martins (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)
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.