Background
Plaintiff Neal Zaslavsky appealed a district court order that granted Defendant David Hoffman’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP rules. The underlying dispute involved Hoffman’s conduct as Director of the Board of Governors for the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, including actions taken to terminate Zaslavsky’s membership. Zaslavsky also challenged the denial of his motion for sanctions and the district court’s refusal to allow discovery.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the anti-SLAPP motion de novo. The court found the first prong of the analysis satisfied because Hoffman’s conduct arose from acts in furtherance of his right of petition and free speech, specifically actions taken in an official proceeding authorized by law. The court treated the motion as a Rule twelve point b six motion because it challenged legal deficiencies in the complaint rather than raising factual issues. The court held that the complaint failed to make a plausible claim that Hoffman acted unlawfully. The panel also affirmed the denial of discovery, the denial of sanctions under Rule eleven, and the rejection of due process claims regarding the meet-and-confer process and the opportunity to brief attorney fees.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that voluntary associations have broad authority to expel members in good faith and that such actions are protected by anti-SLAPP laws. It limits the ability of plaintiffs to use discovery or sanctions to challenge membership terminations when the defendant’s conduct is protected speech.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download