Court of Appeals has construed the Act not to require proof of any expression-suppressing motive on the part of the plaintiff. The legislative history of the Act describes a SLAPP as an action “‘filed by one side of a political or public policy debate aimed to punish or prevent the expression of opposing points of view.’” 11 However, the D.C. Court of Appeals, “discovery normally will not be allowed.” 9 If the claimant fails to establish a probability of winning, the special motion “shall be granted” with prejudice and the court will presumptively award attorney’s fees to the prevailing movant. Filing the motion stays discovery, 7 although the court has some discretion “hen it appears likely that targeted discovery will enable the plaintiff to defeat the motion and that the discovery will not be unduly burdensome.” 8 As construed by the D.C. The District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, 5 like comparable statutes in other jurisdictions, provides procedural mechanisms to dismiss so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” The moving party may file a “special motion to dismiss” seeking to make a “prima facie showing” that the claim arose from “an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.” 6 If the movant makes the prima facie showing, the Act shifts the burden to the claimant to establish a probability of winning the suit. 56, the Court invalidated the discovery limitations in the Anti-SLAPP Act. nact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of Title 11 (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Courts).” Because the Superior Court had not adopted a rule with the approval of the Court of Appeals that modifies Fed. Code § 11-946, that the Superior Court “conduct its business according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure … unless it prescribes or adopts rules which modify those Rules." 3 The Home Rule Act provides that “he Council shall have no authority to. Anti-SLAPP Act’s special-motion-to-dismiss procedure conflict with FRCP 56” and were therefore invalid as an effort to alter the requirement of D.C. Hoffman, 2 the Court held “the discovery-limiting aspects of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act that it had reserved a few months earlier. On September 7 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reached an important issue about the D.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |