Anti-SLAPP applies to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Claims Litigated in State Court

In Patel v. Chavez, published April 30, 2020, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint under the Anti-SLAPP statute.  The defendant, the plaintiff's employee, filed a wage claim with the California Labor Board, alleging failure to pay minimum wage and other wage claim violations.  After the defendant testified at a Berman hearing, the Labor Commissioner issued a ruling granting the defendant over $200,000 in unpaid wages, penalties, and interest.  The plaintiff then sued the defendant and two Labor Commissioner officials under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking $10 million.  The trial court granted the defendant's anti-SLAPP statute.  The plaintiff contended that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to federal claims brought in state court.

The appellate court ruled that anti-SLAPP applied.    Anti-SLAPP is a procedural law, not a substantive immunity.  A forum generally applies its own procedural law to the causes before it.  Anti-SLAPP therefore applies unless (1) the federal statute provides otherwise, or (2) the statute affects the plaintiff's substantive federal rights and is therefore preempted.  Multiple cases have held that the first possibility does not apply to anti-SLAPP; nothing in section 1983 imposes federal procedural law on state courts trying civil rights actions.  As to the second possibility, anti-SLAPP applies neutrally to all causes of action and does not target government conduct.  Nothing in the expedited summary-judgment-like anti-SLAPP procedure stands as an obstacle to accomplishing the goals of section 1983.  It also does not condition plaintiff's rights under section 1983 on compliance with the anti-SLAPP statute; rather, it conditions the rights on showing some probability that the plaintiff has some right to prevail at all under section 1983.  Given the low bar for prevailing against an anti-SLAPP motion, the fee-shifting provision for successful defendants is not a sufficient bar to discourage section 1983 plaintiffs.