A prominent attorney and a prominent business person were sued by another individual, claiming that they were involved in the submission of a report to the Department of Family and Children Services that was later determined by the department to be "unfounded" or "false."  S&B filed a special motion to strike the complaint (a so called "anti-SLAPP motion") on the ground that the alleged conduct was an exerccise of constitutionally protected free speech and that they were not involved in the submission of the report.  Although plaintiff opposed the motion and argued that the conduct was not constitutionally protected and that the defendants' involvement was sufficiently shown by the evidence, the court disagreed, specifically finding a lack of evidence supporting the claims.  Not only was the complaint stricken and the case dismissed, but S&B's clients were awarded their attorney's fees and litigation costs.