| Subgrades | |
| Covered Speech: | A+ |
| Anti-SLAPP Procedures: | A- |
| Subscores | |
| Covered Speech: | 100 out of 100 points |
| Anti-SLAPP Procedures: | 91 out of 100 points |
| Detailed Scoring on Anti-SLAPP Procedures | |
| Suspension of Court Proceedings Upon an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 18 of 20 points |
| Burden of Proof on Plaintiff to Defeat an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 12 of 12 points |
| Right to an Immediate Appeal: | 25 of 25 points |
| Award of Costs and Attorney Fees: | 36 of 40 points |
| Expansive Statutory Interpretation Instruction to Courts: | 0 of 3 points |
State Anti-SLAPP Statute
Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute[1] protects (1) statements made before a legislative, executive, or judicial body, (2) statements made before any legally authorized official proceeding, (3) statements made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, (4) statements made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by any legally authorized official proceeding, (5) statements made in public or in a public forum made in connection with an issue of public interest, and (6) any other conduct or communication that furthers rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. This language has been interpreted broadly by a state appellate court.[2] (However, the statute also carves out several content-related exemptions from the broad principles stated above, such as those related to selling or leasing goods and services.) Although discovery is stayed once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, a court may nonetheless order that specified discovery be conducted if good cause is shown. To prevail against an anti-SLAPP motion, the respondent must establish that there is a “reasonable likelihood”[3] of prevailing at trial. The statute provides for interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying an anti-SLAPP motion. Generally, a court must award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing movant on an anti-SLAPP motion; conversely, if the court finds the motion to be frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, then it must award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing respondent.
[1] Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-1101.
[2] L.S.S. v. S.A.P., 523 P.3d 1280, 2022 COA 123 (Colo. App. Division V, 2022).
[3] Consistent with the appellate courts of other states, the Colorado Supreme Court has interpreted this term as synonymous, in its meaning, with “reasonable probability.” See Salazar v. Pub. Tr. Inst., 522 P.3d 242, 2022 COA 109 (Colo. App. 2022), and L.S.S. v. S.A.P., 523 P.3d at 1286n3.
