Existing law establishes certain provisions to deter frivolous or vexatious lawsuits, also known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “SLAPP lawsuits.” (NRS 41.635-41.670) Under existing law, a person who engages in good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern is immune from civil liability for claims based upon that communication. (NRS 41.650) Existing law also defines good faith communication as communications made by a person: (1) in connection with certain governmental actions, officers, employees or entities; or (2) in direct connection with an issue of public interest in certain places. (NRS 41.637) With certain exceptions, section 1 of this bill excludes within the meaning of such communication any defamatory written or oral statement that concerns a relative or close friend of a candidate during an electoral campaign. Under existing law, if an action is brought against a person who engages in good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern, the person may file a special motion to dismiss the claim. Existing law provides that after a special motion to dismiss is filed, the court must first determine whether the person who filed the special motion to dismiss has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. (NRS 41.660) Under existing law, if the court determines that the person who filed the special motion to dismiss has met this burden, the court must then determine whether the person who brought the claim has demonstrated, with prima facie evidence, a probability of prevailing on the claim pursuant to the same burden of proof required by California's anti-SLAPP law as of June 8, 2015. (NRS 41.665) Section 2 of this bill clarifies that to meet that burden of proof, the person who brought the claim must demonstrate that the complaint is legally sufficient. Section 2 also requires a court to accept as true all evidence that is favorable to the person who brought the claim and evaluate the evidence provided by the person who filed the special motion to dismiss only insofar as to determine whether the evidence defeats the claim as a matter of law. Existing law provides that if a court grants a special motion to dismiss and finds that the motion was frivolous or vexatious, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable costs and attorney's fees and may award an amount of up to $10,000 and any such additional relief as the court deems proper to punish and deter the filing of frivolous or vexatious motions. (NRS 41.670) Section 3 of this bill additionally authorizes the person who brought the claim to recover treble damages if the person ultimately prevails on the claim.

Statutes affected:
As Introduced: 41.637, 41.665, 41.670
BDR: 41.637, 41.665, 41.670