Okorie Okorocha v. Patrick Duff
Opinion
Opinion
Appellant Okorie Okorocha (“Okorocha”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to strike under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute, California Civil Procedure Code Section 425.16. Ok-orocha filed his anti-SLAPP motion in response to appellee Patrick Duffs (“Duff’) libel counterclaim in a civil suit brought by Okorocha.
Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion requires a court to engage in a two-step process. In order to prevail, the moving party, here Okorocha, first must make a “prima facie showing that [his] suit arises from an act by [him] made in connection with a public issue in furtherance of [his] right to free speech under the United States or California Constitution.” Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir.2003); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16. The burden then shifts to the opposing party, here Duff, “to establish a reasonable probability that [he] will prevail on [his] claim in order for that claim to survive dismissal.” Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254, 261 (9th Cir.2013).
On appeal, Okorocha argues that his statements about Duff are protected speech because they relate to the public issue of drug…