Abrams v. Sanson, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Mar. 5, 2020)

The Court determined that statements sent to an email listserv criticizing an attorney’s courtroom conduct were good faith communications regarding a matter of public concern and were protected under the Nevada anti-SLAPP statutes. However, the Court held that Abrams did not show a probability of prevailing on her claims with prima facie evidence as her claims did not exhibit minimal merit

Fighting SLAPPS in Federal Court: Erie, the Rules Enabling Act, and the Application of State anti-SLAPP Laws in Federal Diversity Actions

Legislatures across the United States have passed laws to combat strategic lawsuits against public participation (“SLAPPs”)—suits brought solely to harass a party that has exercised protected speech or petitioning activity. Federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction have struggled to determine whether these nominally procedural laws—particularly their hallmark special motions to dismiss—apply outside of state courts. A proper reading of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reveals that these laws may operate harmoniously alongside the federal system, and the twin aims articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins favor application of anti-SLAPP laws in federal fora. Furthermore, even if the laws and the Rules directly conflict, it would violate the Rules Enabling Act to apply the Federal Rule in preemption of the state anti-SLAPP statute

Noriega v. Activision/Blizzard: The First Amendment Right to Use a Historical Figure\u27s Likeness in Video Games

Panama’s former dictator, Manuel Noriega, recently sued Activision Blizzard in the California Superior Court for using his likeness and image in the popular video game “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” In his complaint, Noriega alleged that the use of his likeness violated his right of publicity. Former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, came to Activision’s defense, and filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. In granting Activision’s motion, the court held that Activision’s use of Noriega’s likeness was transformative and did not violate his right of publicity. This Issue Brief argues that the California Superior Court should not have applied the transformative use test but should have held that Manuel Noriega did not have a right of publicity for his place in Panama’s history

Toll v. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019)

A blogger claimed that his sources are protected under NRS 49.275. The court held that digital media is protected, but did not address whether a blogger is protected. The district court did not err in allowing discovery to determine whether the blogger acted with actual malice

Rosen v. Tarkanian, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (December 12, 2019)

This issue was whether several of Jacky Rosen’s statements about Danny Tarkanian made during her political campaign constituted defamation. The Court determined that Rosen’s political statements were made in good faith and, therefore, the case was reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to grant the special motion to dismiss

The Citizen Participation Act of 2009: Federal Legislation as Effective Defense Against SLAPPs

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government. Citizen efforts have been particularly crucial to the process of creating, shaping, and enforcing environmental laws. Nevertheless, citizen participants in government can often find themselves facing retaliation in the form of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). SLAPPs are lawsuits brought to interfere with a party\u27s exercise of its right to petition the government, typically by draining the party\u27s time and resources. Although many states have adopted anti-SLAPP protections, similar protections are lacking at the federal level. Because so many federal environmental statutes allow for citizen participation, the threat of a SLAPP is especially high. This Note argues that current federal anti-SLAPP protections are inadequate, and that legislation proposed in 2009 would better protect the right of citizens to petition the government