Judge Evans ruled correctly in this case. Anti-SLAPP statutes conflict with Federal Rule 12, and the latter trumps, as the Supreme Court will eventually hold. Carbone certainly didn't fail to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Indeed, considering the extensive evidence cited, I think there's even a good chance he could win this case.
The big problem with anti-SLAPP statutes is that they screw up discovery, as would have been true in this case. There is some amount of discovery that Carbone needs to do, which he would have been prevented from doing by an anti-SLAPP strike. Discovery is often necessary in order to establish a probability greater than facial plausibility of prevailing. As in this case, defamation suits are often cases of David versus Goliath. It isn't fair to stack the deck further in Goliath's favor. I can't imagine why anyone would suggest a general rule that allows dismissal of a case before there is discovery.
Your scenario here is false and disanalogous in every possible way. Claiming that 4consideration is the mother of your child isn't a First Amendment Speech issue, and, moreover, you wouldn't be able to proceed in Family Court very far with mere baseless assertions. 4consideration would not need to spend a dime in order to defend against a baseless complaint, which will end with the DNA test. .
