In OC Media Tower, L.P. et al. v. Louis Galuppo et al., decided on March 28, 2024, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, addressed the denial of anti-SLAPP motions filed by attorney Louis Galuppo and his firm G10 Galuppo Law.

The key issue before the court was whether Galuppo’s submission of an invoice for attorney fees constituted protected prelitigation activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

The court applied the legal rule that to succeed in an anti-SLAPP motion, the movant must first establish that the challenged claims arise from protected activity. If this burden is met, the respondent must then show their claims have minimal merit.

In applying this rule, the court found that Galuppo failed to demonstrate the invoice was part of protected prelitigation activity. The court reasoned that submitting an invoice for contractual payment does not typically constitute protected conduct unless there are circumstances showing litigation was genuinely contemplated and more than theoretical. The court determined that Galuppo’s subjective intent to potentially file a lawsuit if payment was not received was merely hypothetical, not seriously considered litigation.

The court concluded that OC Media’s cross-complaint for fraud and money had and received did not arise from Galuppo’s protected petitioning activities. Rather, the invoice was merely evidence supporting OC Media’s claims, not the basis of Galuppo’s alleged liability. As such, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motions, finding it unnecessary to proceed to the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis.