Tag Archives: boley
For the third time in the past five years, a court has applied the DC anti-SLAPP statute to dismiss a defamation suit brought by a foreign official.
Holding that Michael Mann had shown enough to overcome anti-SLAPP motions filed by the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute, the DC Superior Court denied those motions in twin opinions issued last week. (For prior posts on the Mann suit, see here, and here). The Court’s opinions (here and here) first find that the anti-SLAPP act applies to the challenged statements because they: were made with respect to climate issues, which are environmental issues, thus an issue of public interest. In addition, the comments were made in publications (blogs, columns and articles) that were published to the public (available on …
[ CONTINUE READING]
When I wrote about the DC Superior Court’s decision in Payne v. District of Columbia last month, and about the federal court’s decision in Boley v. Atlantic Monthly Group last week, I mentioned how both courts applied California’s standard of review, which was notable because parties in DC have sparred over the applicable standard. Well, those two decisions have not gone unnoticed by the parties in Mann v. National Review, Inc. – one of the high profile cases under the anti-SLAPP statute that is pending in DC Superior Court (see prior posts on the suit here and here).
On the same day that the DC Circuit issued its decision in Sherrod v. Breitbart, which avoided deciding the “Erie” question by resolving the case on timeliness grounds, another DC federal court judge held that the DC anti-SLAPP statute can be applied in federal court, and granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. (For prior posts on the background and arguments in the Boley case, see here and here).
In response to the anti-SLAPP motion filed by The Atlantic and its correspondent, George Boley has filed his opposition brief and the defendants, in turn, have filed their reply brief. The briefs are relatively routine for this type of libel case, with Boley arguing that: he has adequately plead facts showing actual malice (and the defendants arguing that he has not); defendants are not entitled to the fair report privilege because some of the challenged statements were not based on official records (while they argue they were all based on court filings or official reports); the DC anti-SLAPP statute does …
[ CONTINUE READING]