Location, location, location. The real estate axiom has never been more relevant to defamation cases in light of the hodge-podge of state anti-SLAPP statutes, and federal courts’ interpretation of those laws.
A recent decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has teed up for the state Supreme Court the issue of whether a trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable.
In May 2022, not surprisingly, given Washington’s pioneering role, Judge Thomas S. Zilly, a federal judge in Seattle, became the first judge to grant a UPEPA motion for expedited relief and dismissal under the state’s new anti-SLAPP law.
In only the second case to date to apply Colorado’s anti-SLAPP Act (passed into law in 2019) to a news outlet, a trial court judge tossed a defamation case against Kyle Clark, the nightly news anchor at KUSA-TV/9News, the TEGNA-owned NBC affiliate in Denver.
The decision serves to tee up a divide between Appellate Divisions on the issue of retroactivity because the First Department went the other way in Gottwald v Sebert (the “Dr. Luke v Ke$ha” case), holding that the anti-SLAPP amendments should not have retroactive application.
The Texas anti-SLAPP lawhas broadly safeguarded the constitutional rights of the press to publish freely on matters of public concern. The decision in Polk County Publishing Company v. Coleman, however, provides an example of the outer limits of the TCPA’s protection.
A Nevada court has granted, in full, the anti-SLAPP motion filed by a host of media defendants seeking dismissal of all claims brought by Malcolm LaVergne, O.J. Simpson’s civil lawyer and self-appointed spokesman, in connection with a 2019 podcast.
If the decision stands on appeal, it is likely to strengthen press freedom in Canada, providing useful precedent for media defendants under the relatively new and untested anti-SLAPP law.
The case presented the novel question: “Are claims of physical torts committed in the course of newsgathering covered by anti-SLAPP statutes?” This court answered “yes.”
In a case before a Nevada District Court, it was a big First Amendment win for the self-described big, beautiful women speaking out about abusive behavior.