Monthly Archives: December 2011

DC Attorney General Defends Constitutionality of Anti-SLAPP Statute in Dean v. NBC

The District of Columbia today filed its brief in support of the constitutionality of the anti-SLAPP statute and in response to the attack on that legislation by the plaintiffs in the Dean v. NBC Universal case two months ago. (The District of Columbia had previously sought permission to intervene in the Dean case for the purpose of defending the statute’s constitutionality, which the Court granted on December 13). Like the brief submitted by the DC Attorney General in the 3M v. Boulter case last month, the DC Attorney General’s brief in the Dean case argues that the plaintiffs are misreading the …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

3M Maintains Anti-SLAPP Statute Violates Home Rule in Additional Filings

The trend of copious filings in the 3M v. Boulter case continued today with the plaintiff filing two briefs – a 25-reply brief in support of its motion to strike the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Davis defendants and a 45-page opposition to the Davis defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion – and a “joinder” motion by other defendants in the same case, joining the Davis defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. In its reply brief, 3M continues its argument that the statute violates the Home Rule act, which prohibits the DC Council from enacting any law “with respect to” Title 11 of the DC Code. …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

DC Superior Court Grants Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed by Fox Television Against Lehan Plaintiff

The DC Superior Court today granted an anti-SLAPP motion made by the defendants in Lehan v. Fox. This is the first successful anti-SLAPP motion since the statute became effective earlier this year. (Although the Order appears to have been signed on November 30, it was filed today). While the Court did not issue an opinion, it made oral findings and conclusions, which it incorporated into its Order. Essentially, the Court held that the statute applied to the pending case because, as the defendants had argued in their reply brief, the “burden of proof on the plaintiff does not change [with …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ 1 Comment