Landowner filed action against county, alleging that county lacked the authority to impose civil penalties and to record liens against the property for landowner’s violation of county code, namely operating residential property as a short-term rental and party house.
County filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the conduct forming the basis for landowner’s claims—recording liens against the property—was protected speech covered by the anti-SLAPP statutes.
The District Court denied county’s special motion to dismiss, and county appealed.
The Supreme Court held that county was not a “person” for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statutes.