Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M
by SpicyLemonZest on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @05:02PM
(#18668129)
As long as the plaintiff can establish "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim", the anti-SLAPP statue doesn't apply. It doesn't matter at that point why they filed the lawsuit.
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M
by gamblor956 on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @05:38PM
(#18668351)
Right, the plaintiff needs to show prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims in order to defeat an Anti-SLAPP motion.
Unless Tesla has been concealing some facts in its court filings, they don't have prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims. Anti-SLAPP motions can precede the discovery phase, i.e., before Tesla can acquire that evidence. Moreover, unlike TV, such evidence must be presented in court filings. Ambush disclosures aren't a thing in real life.
The whole point of the Anti-SLAPP statutes is to discourage companies from using lawsuits to "deter future misconduct." It provides, at a minimum, that the company pay all the defendant's legal costs and the complete dismissal of the company's case with prejudice (which usually means all of the related claims filed in the same lawsuit, though on rare occasions the company may be allowed to split off those claims into a separate case).