Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp‪.‬

Statute, Construction. ""Anti-SLAPP"" Statute. Constitutional Law, Right to petition government. Words, ""Matters of public concern."" GILLERMAN, J. A Judge of the Superior Court denied the defendants' special motion to dismiss under G. L. c. 231, § 59H, added by St. 1994, c. 283, § 1, commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP 2 statute (statute), the material provisions of which we set out in the margin. 3 Thereafter, a single Justice of this court granted leave to appeal the Judge's ruling to a full panel of this court. The appeal raises, for the first time, issues regarding the scope and application of the statute. 4 Certain material facts that provide the background for this controversy are undisputed. From 1987 to July, 1990, the defendant Marino was employed as an engineer for the defendant Holmes Products Corporation (Holmes). In July, 1990, Marino left Holmes to work for the plaintiff Duracraft Corporation (Duracraft), where he was employed until August, 1994. From August, 1994, to 1995, Marino was employed by a third company, Accutek. In December, 1995, Marino returned to Holmes, where he is currently employed.