Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc

In Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, the court found that a complaint alleging multiple tort claims arising from the defendants' conducting protests at the plaintiff's home and publishing her home address arose from protected activity. It reached this conclusion even though each cause of action in that case included an allegation that the defendants vandalized the plaintiff's home. Explaining why that allegation did not remove the complaint from the purview of section 425.16, the court stated: "Vandalism, of course, is not a legitimate exercise of free speech rights, and if the complaint arose only from such conduct it would not be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. Each cause of action, however, also alleges protected activity such as the defendants' encouragement of demonstrations against animal testing and support of 'those who choose to operate outside the confines of the legal system.' Indeed, the gravamen of the action against defendants here is based on their exercise of First Amendment rights." (Huntingdon Life Sciences, supra, at p. 1245.)