Since you can't be bothered to post the relevant part yourself, I'll do it for you:
"Courts struck down anti-SLAPP laws in Washington and Minnesota, and Washington enacted an updated law
Courts in Washington and Minnesota struck down their states’ anti-SLAPP laws, finding them unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. As discussed above, however, Washington enacted an updated anti-SLAPP law in 2021 that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court.
In 2016, a Minnesota appellate court similarly found that state’s anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional, finding that the law “deprive[s] the non-moving party of the right to a jury trial by requiring a court to make pretrial factual findings to determine whether the moving party is immune from liability.” Mobile Diagnostic Imaging v. Hooten, 889 N.W.2d 27, 35 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). The following year, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, finding that state’s anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional as applied to claims alleging torts because it requires a district court to make pretrial factual finding in violation of the plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury under the Minnesota constitution. Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 895 N.W.2d 623, 637–38 (Minn. 2017). These decisions raise concerns that courts in other states that recognize a plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury may follow suit."
From that, I don't know that it's reasonable to conclude that "they likely can't protect Sweeney at all", but IANAL.
Anti-SLAPP laws generally allow for quick dismissal of lawsuits that fit the criteria. They don't lay out any criminal penalties for doing so. Also, not every state has an anti-SLAPP statute.
Anti-SLAPP statues aren't available everywhere in the US (nor I think I'm Canada). Importantly, there is none federally. Although sometimes state statutes can be used in federal court.
This is a federal case, and there's no federal anti-SLAPP law.
Even in states which have anti-SLAPP laws, they target frivolous lawsuits to deter speaking out. If you really do have a case, but part of your motivation for bringing it is to deter future misconduct, that's perfectly kosher.
These are different state by state, but Anti-SLAPP is meant to protect from vexatious litigants, that is someone rich threatening to sue you to shut you up. I'm not a lawyer, I just listen to Serious Trouble podcast.
I was also getting at the possibility of a SLAPP countersuit. I don't know where you are but your state might support them. In California there is the California Anti-SLAPP Project which you could look up.
SLAPP laws would not help since they are about public participation - like for example, you oppose a permit for someone down the street, and they sue you for doing so.
Or you express an opinion on facebook about a political figure, and they sue you for defamation.
What we are talking about here would not be considered a SLAPP in most states.
Virginia has an anti-SLAPP statue but this is a federal suit, and the Fourth Circuit hasn’t ruled on whether state anti-SLAPP statutes apply to federal cases.
As long as the plaintiff can establish "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim", the anti-SLAPP statue doesn't apply. It doesn't matter at that point why they filed the lawsuit.
Virginia doesn't have a strong anti-SLAPP law. It's weak at best, only carving out some immunity for statements made about "matters of public concern": https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/secti... And unlike other states, if the plaintiff loses on a motion to dismiss under the statute, the defendant isn't entitled to attorney fees and court costs.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how a counterclaim would work in this case, but the way I understand anti-SLAPP statutes to work is that they let the defendant file a motion to dismiss. If the suit were in state court, then the state law would clearly apply and Krebs could try to have the suit dismissed. But it's in federal court, not a Virginia state court. Whether state anti-SLAPP statutes can be used in federal cases is not clear; there's a circuit split and the Fourth Circuit has not ruled on question: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/second-circuit-slaps-down-...
My understanding of the linked article is that the question is whether the federal rules of civil procedure supersede the state anti-SLAPP statue, because, since it’s in federal court, the suit is governed by the FRCP even if it’s over state or common law claims.
No. SLAPP statutes protect against frivolous lawsuits. If someone is sued over sharing an opinion, SLAPP might provide a quick way to demonstrate that the opinion is protected speech and that the suit is unwinnable. Generally, SLAPP aims to easily dismiss suits without merit.
This is not a frivolous lawsuit and is not without merit.
"Courts struck down anti-SLAPP laws in Washington and Minnesota, and Washington enacted an updated law
Courts in Washington and Minnesota struck down their states’ anti-SLAPP laws, finding them unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. As discussed above, however, Washington enacted an updated anti-SLAPP law in 2021 that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court.
In 2016, a Minnesota appellate court similarly found that state’s anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional, finding that the law “deprive[s] the non-moving party of the right to a jury trial by requiring a court to make pretrial factual findings to determine whether the moving party is immune from liability.” Mobile Diagnostic Imaging v. Hooten, 889 N.W.2d 27, 35 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). The following year, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, finding that state’s anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional as applied to claims alleging torts because it requires a district court to make pretrial factual finding in violation of the plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury under the Minnesota constitution. Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 895 N.W.2d 623, 637–38 (Minn. 2017). These decisions raise concerns that courts in other states that recognize a plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury may follow suit."
From that, I don't know that it's reasonable to conclude that "they likely can't protect Sweeney at all", but IANAL.
reply