Hitt

INTRODUCTION

Chester Hitt sued his former wife, Rebekah Hitt, for defamation based on statements made by Rebekah in three Facebook and Instagram posts. Rebekah filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,1 claiming the statements were protected speech within the meaning of the statute. She appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion. We affirm in part and reverse in part. On our de novo review, we conclude the statements in two of Rebekah’s social media posts qualified for protection under the public forum category of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). Because we further conclude Chester’s claims for defamation based on the protected statements in these posts are time-barred, we direct the trial court on remand to strike those allegations. We affirm the trial court’s order denying Rebekah’s motion to strike the allegations based on statements in her third post, as Rebekah has failed to sustain her burden of proving they “furthered[ ] the discourse that makes an issue one of public interest.” (FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 151 (FilmOn).)

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL…