Cccera

This case requires us to decide whether litigation seeking judicial review of an action or decision by a public entity is subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, merely because the challenged action or decision was taken by vote after discussion at a public meeting. Our answer is no. Even if the conduct of individual public officials in discussing and voting on a public entity’s action or decision could constitute an exercise of rights protected under the anti-SLAPP statute—an issue we need not and do not reach—this does not mean that litigation challenging a public entity’s action or decision always arises from protected activity. In the present case, the litigation does not arise from the speech or votes of public officials, but rather from an action taken by the public entity administered by those officials. Moreover, that action was not itself an exercise of the public entity’s right of free speech or petition. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying the entity’s special motion to strike.

I.

Facts and Procedural Background

All of the parties to this appeal are public entities. Appellant…