In what circumstances will a court grant defendants time to file an anti-SLAPP motion in an amended complaint?

In response, plaintiffs repeat their arguments that the anti-SLAPP motions were untimely as filed eight years too late. They argue the court's discretion to permit a late filing is limited by the policy of the statuteto expedite disposition of claims burdening speech and petition rights, and minimize costs to the partiesand because the parties had litigated extensively and incurred significant costs, permitting the motion at this stage negates that policy, requiring the motions be deemed untimely. As for the rule pertaining to amended complaints, plaintiffs argue Lam v. Ngo made clear it applies only where the preceding complaint contained no anti-free speech claims, and where, as here, the original and first amended complaints set out the same four interference claims supported by the same underlying facts, the trial court abused its discretion by ruling defendants had timely filed the anti-SLAPP motions to the second amended complaint. As we explain, we agree with plaintiffs that the motions are untimely as to the causes of action for interference with and inducing breach of contract, and intentional and negligent interference with economic advantage.

Page 16