How have courts dealt with a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute?

In San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, the board of a county retirement system voted to require a fire protection district to increase its pension contributions to the retirement system. ( San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 347348, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.) Seeking to contribute a lesser amount, the district sued the board for mandamus and declaratory relief. The board brought a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing its decision to require additional pension contributions after a public hearing and a majority vote of the board's members constituted protected activity. ( Id. at pp. 348349, 353, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.) The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the board's adoption of a pension contribution requirement was not an exercise of free speech or the right to petition. ( Id. at pp. 346, 357, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.)

The court observed that a contrary decision would significantly burden the petition rights of those seeking review of government actions. ( San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 357358, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.) Because many public entity decisions are arrived at after discussion and a vote at a public meeting, petitioners challenging those decisions would be forced to make a prima facie showing of merit at the pleading stage, which would "chill the resort to legitimate judicial oversight over potential abuses of legislative

[172 Cal.Rptr.3d 678]

and administrative power." ( Id. at p. 358, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.)