Monthly Archives: October 2011

Dean v. NBC Defendants Argue Statute is Constitutional and Does Not Violate Home Rule

On the same day the plaintiff in the 3M v. Boulter moved to strike the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Davis defendants on the basis that the statute violates the DC Home Rule, the defendants in the Dean v. NBC Universal case filed their reply brief, responding to the same argument in the plaintiffs’ opposition. According to the defendants, the opposition brief does not respond to the arguments made by the defendants in their opening brief, but instead distorts and mischaracterizes the relevant facts. While the plaintiff repeatedly argued that Maddow failed to include “material quotes” from Dean’s statement, the …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

3M Moves to Strike Anti-SLAPP Motion on Basis That Statute Is Not Applicable In Federal Court

The plaintiff in the 3M v. Boulter case today moved to strike the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Davis defendants earlier this month. The brief argues that the District of Columbia Council lacked authority to pass the anti-SLAPP statute. Nearly half of the 45-page brief contains a recitation of the facts, citing to the complaint and supplementing with additional information. After this lengthy factual section, 3M argues that the DC Council lacks authority to enact any act, resolution, or rule regarding the state or federal courts in the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act. It argues that the anti-SLAPP statute modifies …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Both Parties Submit Supplemental Briefs in Lehan v. Fox on Issue of Retroactivity

Both the plaintiff and the defendants in the Lehan v. Fox case today filed the supplemental briefs ordered by the Court last month. As I suspected then, the briefs address the “retroactivity” issue, addressing whether the statute is substantive or procedural in nature. The plaintiff’s supplemental brief first argues that this suit is not a quintessential SLAPP suit because it was not filed to silence speech, but for damages suffered as a result of a false and defamatory news story. Then turning to the issue requested by the Court, it argues that “the Anti-SLAPP Act is substantive in nature and should not …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Sherrod Plaintiff Moves To Dismiss Breitbart Appeal

On the same day that the parties in the Lehan v. Fox case submitted supplemental briefs on the retroactivity issue, the plaintiff in the Sherrod v. Breitbart suit moved to dismiss the appeal filed by the anti-SLAPP movants there or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance. As you may recall, on July 28, Judge Leon denied the anti-SLAPP motion with a minute order. On August 26, the moving parties filed their notice of appeal. To date, Judge Leon has not issued an opinion explaining why he denied the anti-SLAPP motion. In her motion to dismiss/for summary affirmance filed today, Ms. …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Farah v. Esquire Defendants Maintain Statute Applies in Federal Court

The defendants in the Farah v. Esquire suit today filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim or under the DC anti-SLAPP statute. The reply brief points out that the plaintiffs’ opposition did not respond to the majority of the arguments in the defendants’ memorandum and argues that this shows the lack of merit in the lawsuit. Turning to what the plaintiffs actually argued, the defendants assert that the Massachusetts’ district court opinions relied upon by the plaintiffs were effectively overruled by the First Circuit last year and, thus, the …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Another Plaintiff Attacks Constitutionality of DC Anti-SLAPP Statute

The plaintiffs in the Dean v. NBC Universal suit today filed their opposition to the motion filed by the defendants last month which sought dismissal, in part, under DC’s anti-SLAPP statute. As I predicted last month, the plaintiffs’ primary argument is that the statute violates the DC Home Rule. This argument was first made by Dan Snyder in his opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the City Paper and its reporter. It was later obliquely adopted by the plaintiff in the Farah v. Esquire case. When Snyder made the argument, the DC Attorney General promptly moved to intervene in …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Anti-SLAPP Statute Raised in Another High-Profile Federal Court Case

Lanny Davis and his related companies, which are defendants in a defamation suit pending in DC federal court that is captioned 3M v. Boulter, today filed a motion to dismiss the suit under DC’s anti-SLAPP statute. The complaint, which was filed on June 28, 2011, alleges that, in early 2007, a 3M subsidiary acquired all of the outstanding shares of Acolyte, a British company engaged in the business of developing and marketing products whose aim was to detect certain dangerous microorganisms. It alleges that, at the time of the acquisition, Acolyte’s only commercially viable product was a device that allegedly allowed …

[ CONTINUE READING ]