Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc.

Under ORS 31.150(3), a plaintiff must present “substantial evidence to support a prima facie case” to have an anti-SLAPP motion denied; this means that a plaintiff “must submit sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that the plaintiff met its burden of production.” Handy v. Lane County, 360 Or 605, 385 P3d 1016 (2016).

Defendants appealed a limited judgment in denying the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants assigned error to the fact that the Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof showing a probability that the plaintiff would succeed on his claims. On appeal, defendants argued that the anti-SLAPP motion applied because plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof as the statements were not materially false. In response, plaintiff argued that the word “pressured” in defendants’ assertions indicated defamation. Under ORS 31.150(3), a plaintiff must present “substantial evidence to support a prima facie case” means that a plaintiff “must submit sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that the plaintiff met its burden of production” to have an anti-SLAPP motion denied. Handy v. Lane County, 360 Or 605, 385 P3d 1016 (2016). The court held that the plaintiff failed to show substantial evidence because the evidence submitted was not sufficient enough for a reasonable jury to conclude that actual malice was present in their assertions. Further, because the evidence is not sufficient, the plaintiff failed to show a prima facie case. Reversed and remanded.