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.
- Snyder Complaint filed in DC Superior Court (filed April 26, 2011)
- City Paper anti-SLAPP brief (filed June 17, 2011)
- Amicus brief filed by ACLU/media (filed July 18, 2011)
- Snyder opposition brief (filed August 1, 2011)
- DC motion to intervene (filed August 30, 2011)
- Snyder stipulation of dismissal (filed September 10, 2011)
- City Paper Attempts to SLAPP Back at Dan Snyder (posted June 17, 2011)
- City Paper Gets Amicus Support in Suit by Dan Snyder (posted July 19, 2011)
- Dan Snyder Challenges Constitutionality of DC Anti-SLAPP Statute In Response to Motion By City Paper (posted August 2, 2011)
- DC Attorney General Moves To Intervene and Defend Statute’s Constitutionality in Snyder Suit (posted August 30, 2011)
- Dan Snyder Dismisses Suit Against City Paper (posted September 10, 2011)