Tag Archives: legislative history

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 …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Farah v. Esquire Defendants Maintain Statute Applies in Federal Court

The defendants in the Farah v. Esquire suit today filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim or under the DC anti-SLAPP statute. The reply brief points out that the plaintiffs’ opposition did not respond to the majority of the arguments in the defendants’ memorandum and argues that this shows the lack of merit in the lawsuit. Turning to what the plaintiffs actually argued, the defendants assert that the Massachusetts’ district court opinions relied upon by the plaintiffs were effectively overruled by the First Circuit last year and, thus, the …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Lehan v. Fox Television Plaintiff Responds to Anti-SLAPP Motion by Arguing Retroactivity

The plaintiff in the Lehan v. Fox lawsuit has filed his opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion filed last month by the media defendants. Lehan’s primary argument is that the anti-SLAPP statute cannot be applied “retroactively,” because, by increasing a defamation plaintiff’s burden, it provides “substantive” rights. Lehan quotes from the statute’s legislative history to support his argument that it provides “substantive” rights. Lehan argues that, as such, the statute, which became effective in March 2011, cannot be applied to the case because the allegedly defamatory story was broadcast in January 2011 and a substantive change in the law cannot be applied retroactively, absent …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Dan Snyder Challenges Constitutionality of DC Anti-SLAPP Statute In Response to Motion By City Paper

Today, Dan Snyder filed his opposition to the motion filed by the City Paper and Dave McKenna under DC anti-SLAPP statute. Snyder’s opposition argues that the anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional because, under DC’s Home Rule, the DC Council has no authority to legislate in areas concerning the DC courts. The opposition argues that, because the anti-SLAPP statute materially changes the procedural rules in DC courts (by, for example, staying discovery pending the resolution of the anti-SLAPP motion), it violates DC’s Home Rule and, as a result, is unconstitutional. The anti-SLAPP statute’s legislative history notes that “Attorney General for the District of Columbia, …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

DC Anti-Slapp Statute Effective Today

The “Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010,” which was signed by Mayor Vincent Gray on January 19, 2011, became effective today. Its legislative history explains that the statute: “incorporates substantive rights with regard to a defendant’s ability to fend off lawsuits filed by one side of a political or public policy debate aimed to punish or prevent the expression of opposing points of view.  Such lawsuits, often referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation — or SLAPPs — have been increasingly utilized over the past two decades as a means to muzzle speech or efforts to petition the government on issues …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ 2 Comments