Snook v. Swan

Under ORS 31.150, when a party files a special motion to strike, a two-step burden-shifting process is applied. First, the filing party must have met its burden of showing that the claim arises out of statements or conduct protected by ORS 31.150(2), and second, the party bringing the claim must establish that there is a probability that they will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case.

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's denial of a special motion to strike a counterclaim under ORS 31.150. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court's ruling that the Defendant carried her burden to show a probability that she would prevail on her counterclaim, preventing Snook from invoking the anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to provide any substantial evidence, thereby failing the requirements of ORS 31.150. Under ORS 31.150, when a party files a special motion to strike, a two-step burden-shifting process is applied. First, the filing party must have met its burden of showing that the claim arises out of statements or conduct protected by ORS 31.150(2), and second, the party bringing the claim must establish that there is a probability that they will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. The Court held that the trial court erred in believing that the statute did not require Defendant to submit evidence to support her counterclaim. Limited judgment reversed and remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff's ORS 31.150 special motion to strike defendant's counterclaim for libel per se.