Tag Archives: reply

David v. Goliath in DC Superior Court

A “David versus Goliath” battle is playing out in the DC Superior Court, with the DC anti-SLAPP statute in the role of the slingshot.

Posted in General \ 2 Comments

Sheldon Adelson Asserts that DC anti-SLAPP statute is Unconstitutional

In the three plus years since the DC anti-SLAPP statute first became effective, parties have argued that it violates the Home Rule, cannot be used retroactively, cannot be applied in federal court, and does not apply to motions made more than 45 days after service.  Now, in a galaxy far, far away (well, actually New York), a high-profile plaintiff is asserting a new argument: that the statute violates the Seventh Amendment.  

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Does Detention for Immigration Violation Toll Libel Statute of Limitations?

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 ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Mann and National Review Spar Over anti-SLAPP burden and related issues

In the libel squabble between Michael Mann and National Review, Mann has filed his response to the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, and they, in turn, have filed their reply brief. Now that the briefing is complete, it is clear that there are several issues in serious dispute between the parties. First, they disagree on the burden imposed upon Mann to avoid dismissal.  The statute provides that, if the moving party satisfies the statute’s elements, the suit must be dismissed unless the non-moving party can show that it is “likely” to succeed on the merits.  

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Does DC anti-SLAPP statute apply to suit against government official?

The District of Columbia has filed its reply brief in support of its anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the defamation suit brought by former employee Eric Payne for statements made by the district’s CFO Natwar M. Gandhi concerning Payne’s termination as contracting director for the Office of the CFO.

Posted in General \ 1 Comment

Sherrod v. Breitbart Appeal Ready for Oral Argument

The Sherrod v. Brietbart appeal is now fully briefed (opening brief here, opposition brief here, and reply brief here) and ready for the oral argument, scheduled for March 15, 2013.  (The case has also attracted amicus briefs, including from the District of Columbia, the ACLU and Public Citizen, and a host of news organizations).  The threshold question in Sherrod is whether the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp.  (The DC Court of Appeals recently held that it was not).  Under Cohen, the appellants must show that the …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Maddow Defendants File Reply Brief in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

Rachel Maddow and the related NBC defendants today filed their reply brief in support of their anti-SLAPP motion. After initially arguing that the plaintiffs’ opposition had failed to respond to the majority of their arguments, they address the two attacks on the statute – that it violates the Home Rule and is inapplicable in federal court. Defendants first argue that the Home Rule and its legislative history “are devoid of any indication that Congress intended to prohibit the Council from enacting legislation that conferred substantive rights on defendants that are targeted with meritless litigation as a result of speaking on …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

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

Davis Defendants’ Reply Brief Asserts That Court Must Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion

The Davis defendants today filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the 3M Complaint. The reply brief directly responds to 3M’s argument that the anti-SLAPP statute is not applicable because the speech at issue did not concern a matter of “public concern,” but was instead directed primarily toward a private commercial interest. According to the Davis defendants, 3M’s argument fails because it never identified any commercial interest of Davis toward which the statements were directed and because, in the view of the Davis defendants, the statements “on their face involved matters of public interest as defined …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment

Dean v. NBC Defendants Argue Statute is Constitutional and Does Not Violate Home Rule

On the same day the plaintiff in the 3M v. Boulter moved to strike the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Davis defendants on the basis that the statute violates the DC Home Rule, the defendants in the Dean v. NBC Universal case filed their reply brief, responding to the same argument in the plaintiffs’ opposition. According to the defendants, the opposition brief does not respond to the arguments made by the defendants in their opening brief, but instead distorts and mischaracterizes the relevant facts. While the plaintiff repeatedly argued that Maddow failed to include “material quotes” from Dean’s statement, the …

[ CONTINUE READING ]

Posted in General \ Leave a comment