Case Conclusion Date: 05.13.2013
Practice Area: Business
Outcome: Appellate Victory
Description: THIRD DIVISION MILLER, P. J., RAY and BRANCH, JJ. Our analysis of the applicability of the anti-SLAPP statute to the claims in this case was limited by the generalized averments of the complaint and the vagueness of the claims contained therein. Thus, we cannot make a threshold finding that the statements or acts alleged in the complaint were made in relation to some official proceeding.13 Accordingly, we find that the trial did not err in finding that the anti- SLAPP statute did not apply in this case; thus, the trial court did not err in denying Emory’s motion to dismiss or strike the complaint.