The trial court dismissed Katie Lovett’s complaint against Capital Principles, LLC and other defendants on the basis that Lovett failed to file with her complaint the written verifications required by subsection b of OCGA § 9-11-11.1, Georgia’s anti-SLAPP Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute. Lovett contends on appeal that the verifications were not required because the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to the claims asserted in the complaint. We find that the trial court correctly determined that the statute applied, and we affirm the dismissal of the complaint. The anti-SLAPP statute advances a public interest to encourage citizens to participate in matters of public significance by exercising the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances, and does so by ensuring that those rights are not chilled through abuse of the judicial process. OCGA § 9-11-11.1a; Atlanta Humane Society v. Harkins , 278 Ga. 451, 452 603 SE2d 289 2004. Subsection b of the statute provides that, when a complaint is filed asserting a claim “against a person or entity arising from an act by that person or entity which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances . . . in connection with an issue of public interest or concern,” then written verifications must be filed contemporaneously with the complaint which certify that the party and his or her attorney of record, if any, have read the claim; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; that the act forming the basis for the claim is not a privileged communication under paragraph 4 of Code Section 51-5-7; and that the claim is not interposed for any improper purpose such as to suppress a person’s or entity’s right of free speech or right to petition government, or to harass, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. OCGA § 9-11-11.1 b. Subsection b further provides that, “if the claim is not verified as required by this subsection, it shall be stricken unless it is verified within ten days after the omission is called to the attention of the party asserting the claim.” OCGA § 9-11-11.1 b. When a subsection b verification of a claim is timely filed, if the trial court determines that the verification is false because the claim infringes on the rights of free speech or petition as defined by the statute, the claim may be dismissed. Harkins , 278 Ga. at 454; Metzler v. Rowell , 248 Ga. App. 596, 598 547 SE2d 311 2001. Before considering whether a verification is false, the trial court must as a threshold matter find that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to the claim and that verification was required. Harkins , 278 Ga. at 452; Metzler , 248 Ga. App. at 600.
Lovett did not file subsection b verifications with the complaint or within ten days after the defendants answered and called the alleged omission to her attention, so this case does not involve dismissal for false verification. Rather, the defendants moved the trial court to strike the claims asserted in the complaint and to dismiss the complaint on the basis that Lovett failed to file the required verifications. If the anti-SLAPP statute applies to a claim asserted in a complaint, and the plaintiff fails to timely file the required subsection b verifications, the defendant is entitled to have the claim stricken and the complaint dismissed. Hawks v. Hinely , 252 Ga. App. 510-515 556 SE2d 547 2001; Metzler , 248 Ga. App. at 598, 600. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion raised the threshold issue whether the anti-SLAPP statute applied to the claims asserted in the complaint.
