California Anti-SLAPP Victory: Darren Chaker Defeats Lawsuit Targeting Free Speech

What Is an Anti-SLAPP Motion and How Did Darren Chaker Use It?

Darren Chaker filed an anti-SLAPP motion under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 in San Diego Superior Court to strike a lawsuit designed to suppress his First Amendment protected speech. California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides a powerful mechanism for defendants to dismiss meritless lawsuits that target constitutionally protected activity, including speech on matters of public interest and viewpoint discrimination claims.

What Does California’s Anti-SLAPP Law Protect?

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1), a court shall strike a cause of action arising from any act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. In Chaker v. Crogan (9th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 1215, cert. den., 547 U.S. 1128, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the constitutional principle that citizens cannot be punished for exercising their First Amendment rights to file complaints or publish commentary on matters of public concern. Darren Chaker’s anti-SLAPP motion invoked these same protections.

What Are the Two Prongs of an Anti-SLAPP Motion in California?

California’s anti-SLAPP framework requires a two-step analysis. First, the defendant must show the challenged claim arises from protected activity under section 425.16, subdivision (e). Second, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384.) The motion filed by Darren Chaker’s counsel established that the speech at issue constituted protected activity in a public forum and that the plaintiff could not meet the second prong.

View the Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed in San Diego Superior Court

The full anti-SLAPP motion filed by attorneys for Darren Chaker is available below. This filing demonstrates how California’s anti-SLAPP statute intersects with First Amendment viewpoint discrimination protections and Penal Code section 148.6 concerns.

Why Does the Anti-SLAPP Motion Matter for Viewpoint Discrimination?

Strategic lawsuits against public participation—known as SLAPP suits—represent a form of viewpoint discrimination by attempting to use the court system to silence disfavored speech. The California Legislature recognized this threat when enacting section 425.16, finding that participation in matters of public significance must not be chilled through the abuse of the judicial process. Darren Chaker’s successful use of the anti-SLAPP statute reinforces the principles established in Chaker v. Crogan and the ongoing California Supreme Court review in S275272 (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 78 Cal.App.5th 1081).

Do not take anything here as legal advice. All posts are opinions and personal thoughts.

About The Author

Darren Chaker

In 2017, Darren Chaker won again where a failed attorney, Scott McMillan, San Diego, sued in federal court alleging defamation in the context of a RICO case. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit and found the case to be meritless. Attorney McMillan filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.

In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights.

Darren also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.

See author's posts

Darren Chaker

In 2017, Darren Chaker won again where a failed attorney, Scott McMillan, San Diego, sued in federal court alleging defamation in the context of a RICO case. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit and found the case to be meritless. Attorney McMillan filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights.Darren also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.

See Full Bio