Snyder v. Creative Loafing, Inc.

Snyder v. Creative Loafing, Inc., Case No. 2011-ca-3168 (DC Superior Court)

Importance: In responding to the anti-SLAPP motion, Snyder argued that the statute violated the DC Home Rule Act. This argument led the DC Attorney General to move to intervene in the lawsuit in order to defend the statute. After the Superior Court granted the motion to intervene, Snyder voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice.

Summary: After Daniel Synder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, sued the Washington City Paper, alleging that a column defamed him, the City Paper filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The City Paper was supported by an amicus brief filed by the ACLU and consortium of media entities. Snyder filed an opposition, arguing that the DC anti-SLAPP statute violated the DC Home Rule and that, in any event, he was likely to prevail on the merits. After the Superior Court allowed the DC Attorney General’s office to intervene, to defend the constitutionality of the statute, Snyder voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. As a result, the court never ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion or Snyder’s Home Rule argument.

Relevant Pleadings:

Blog Posts:

 

 

Leave a Reply