Litigation

Ninth Circuit interprets Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, dismisses appeal

By Lori Bauman

Oregon is one of a number of states that have enacted "anti-SLAPP" statutes designed to prevent certain types of abusive lawsuits.  SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," and the anti-SLAPP statute creates a procedure for dismissing at an early stage a lawsuit designed to quash speech or activism on issues of public interest.  The procedure, called a "special motion to strike," puts the litigation on hold until a judge decides that there is a probablility plaintiff will prevail at trial.  ORS 31.150.

The Ninth Circuit last week addressed whether the a defendant can pursue an immediate appeal when the trial court denies a special motion to strike and determines that the lawsuit attacking defendant's speech must proceed to trial.  In Englert v. MacDonell, "the complaint alleged that the six named defendants, all forensic scientists in blood pattern analysis, had falsely denigrated plaintiff's qualifications in that specialty."  Defendants used Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute to ask the district court to dismiss the claims at an early stage.  The court denied the special motion to strike as to four of the six defendants, and those parties filed an immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit found in the anti-SLAPP statute no legislative intent to allow appeal of a denial of a special motion to strike before entry of judgment.  As a result, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisidiction.

Full post as published by Northwest Business Litigation Blog on January 15, 2009 (boomark / email).