3M Argues Interlocutory Appeal Must Be Dismissed; Statute Does Not Confer Immunity

3M today filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss the Davis defendants appeal. 3M’s tight and focused argument is: (a) denials of motions to dismiss are generally not immediately reviewable; (b) that general rule is subject to limited exceptions when the motion involves immunity from trial; but (c) the anti-SLAPP statute does not provide any such support for the proposition that the statute was intended to provide immunity from trial.

Last month, of course, the Davis defendants and the District of Columbia argued in opposition to 3M’s motion that the legislative history of the anti-SLAPP statute shows that it was intended to provide an immediate right to appeal, but that this right could not be included because of the Home Rule. 3M responds by arguing that the legislative history is irrelevant in light of the complete absence of a statutory right of appeal and that this argument, if anything, confirms that there is no right to immediate appeal in the statute.

Leslie Machado

About: Leslie Machado

Mr. Machado counsels and advises a diverse range of clients on various areas of law. He is also an experienced litigator, having tried cases to verdict in state and federal courts. View all posts by Leslie Machado
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!