Identifying and Beating a SLAPP Suit | 1993

IDENTIFYING AND BEATING A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DWIGHT H. MERRIAM*
Jeffrey A. Benson**
INTRODUCTION
A pattern is emerging across the United States in which citizens and local
community groups are being sued for what has long been considered "ordinary"
public participation. Persons who write editorials, take part in referendums, or
speak at town meetings are increasingly ending up in court. Although suits
against such individuals rarely prevail in court, their true goals of retaliation
and intimidation are frequently accomplished. Such suits, called strategic
lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs,' use the courts to silence,
harass and obstruct political opponents.
SLAPP suits are particularly common in the environmental and land use
areas of law.2 The most frequent example of a SLAPP suit is the land
developer who sues members of a community who oppose a development
project.3 While the developer may realize that her SLAPP suit has no chance
of winning on the merits, she knows that the average citizen dislikes going to
court, cannot afford large attorney's fees, will be inconvenienced by court
appearances and discovery, and will be less likely to speak out either during or
after the suit.'
This article analyzes SLAPP suits and examines in some depth the most
common defenses against such suits. Part I defines the SLAPP suit, looks at
*Dwight H. Merriam is a partner at Robinson & Cole in Hartford, Connecticut. He is a past
president of the American Institute of Certified Planners.
**Jeffrey A. Benson is Managing Editor of the Duke EnvironmentalLaw & Policy Forum
and worked at Robinson & Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, during the summer of 1992.
1. This term was created by Professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring of the
University of Denver, who have written widely on this topic. See, e.g., George W. Pring,
SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,7 PACE ENvrL. L. Rn-v. 3 (1989);
Penelope Canan, The SLAPPfrom a SociologicalPerspective,7 PAcE ENvrL. L. REV. 23 (1989);
Penelope Canan & George W. Pring, Studying Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation:
Mixing Quantitativeand QualitativeApproaches,22 LAw & Soc'Y REv. 385 (1988); Penelope
Canan & George W. Pring, StrategicLawsuitsAgainst PublicParticipation,35 Soc. PROBS. 506
(1988). Throughout this article we use the terms "SLAPP suit" and "SLAPP." The former is
admittedly redundant, yet it has become an established part of the vernacular.
2. The SLAPP suits studied by Professors Pring and Canan break down into the following
categories: development and zoning (25%); complaints about public officials (20%); environnen-
tal and animal rights (18%); civil and human rights (11%); neighborhood problems (7%); and
consumer protection (6%). Pring, supra note 1, at 9.
3. Id.
4. The average suit asks for $9,000,000, an intimidating sum for a private citizen or small
community group. Canan, supranote 1,at 26.

18 DUKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY FORUM
the most common claims, and provides some examples of typical SLAPP suits.
Part II explores the societal impact of SLAPP suits. Part III presents specific
defenses used against the most common SLAPP suit charges while Part IV
analyzes the SLAPP-Back, a countersuit filed by the SLAPP's target. Part V
considers various judicial remedies which have the potential to reduce SLAPP
suits. Finally, Part VI examines the ways in which state legislatures have
addressed SLAPP suits. The article concludes that while SLAPP suits represent
a disturbing trend in litigation, they are generally defeated in court, and steps
can and should be taken by judges, legislators and defendants to reduce the
suits' effectiveness.
I. WHAT IS A SLAPP Surr?
A. Defining the Term
As characterized by Professor George W. Pring, a leading scholar on
SLAPP suits5 the suits contain the following four criteria:
1) a civil complaint or counterclaim for monetary damages and/or an
injunction;
2) filed against non-governmental individuals or groups;
3) because of their communication to a government body, official, or the
electorate;
4) on an issue of some public interest or concern."
A fifth criterion should be added to Professor Pring's list to fully characterize
SLAPP suits: the suits are without merit and contain an ulterior political or
economic motive. This criterion is both an integral part of understanding the
SLAPP suit and the principal difficulty in identifying one. This additional
criterion distinguishes legitimate lawsuits from suits whose purpose is to curtail
public participation. If a neighbor seeks money from a developer by threaten-
ing to publicly criticize a new development unless given the money, one could
understand if the developer sought legal recourse against the neighbor. This
situation is quite different from one in which a citizen, simply wishing to
preserve the character of her neighborhood, stands up at a zoning hearing to
air her grievances about a proposed project and is hit with a suit for slander,
interference with contract, or some other frivolous claim. The difference goes
to the motivation and the legitimacy of the suit. If a suit is filed because a
developer has been legitimately wronged in a legal sense, the suit is not a
SLAPP suit. However, if the developer wishes to accomplish a political end,
such as silencing legally permissible criticism, the suit is a SLAPP suit.
5. See supranote 1.
6. Pring, supranote 1, at 8.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
While the fifth definitional criterion is essential in understanding the
SLAPP suit, it is often difficult to spot when superficially examining a suit. Not
only must one look at the pleadings, but also at the often subtle motivations of
the filer. There are cases in which the defendant obviously did nothing legally
wrong and was hit with a meritless suit by a person or organization hoping to
silence or intimidate the defendant.7 Many other suits, however, are in a
grayer area in which the filer has an arguably tenable claim. It is these gray-
area suits which cause problems in devising ways to remedy or curtail the
SLAPP suit.
B. The ClaimsFrequently BroughtBy SLAPP Plaintiffs
There are a variety of claims frequently brought by plaintiffs in SLAPP
suits. Defamation, including libel and slander, is the most common claim,
accounting for approximately half of SLAPP suits brought.' Business torts,
such as interference with contract and restraint on trade, are involved in
approximately one-third of the suits." Abuse of process, malicious prosecu-
tion, conspiracy, constitutional or civil rights violations, and nuisance are other
common SLAPP suit claims."
The Sierra Club was the defendant in one of the first and best known
SLAPP suits, Sierra Club v. Butz.' The Sierra Club sought a temporary
injunction against logging in an area of forest eligible for designation as part of
the National Wilderness Preservation System. 3 They argued that if logging
were permitted, the area would be despoiled and no longer eligible for
wilderness status. 4 Three days after the Sierra Club filed suit, they were
"SLAPPed" by Humboldt Fir, who claimed that the Sierra Club's actions
constituted economic interference. 5 Specifically, Humboldt claimed that 1)
the Sierra Club sought to induce the U.S. government to breach a timber
harvesting contract; 2) but for the Sierra Club's acts, future sales would be
made; and 3) the Sierra Club induced the Forest Service to reduce or abandon
its timber sale program.'6 The federal district court for the Northern District
7. See, e.g, Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied,488 U.S. 825 (1988).
8. Such "borderline" suits are particularly common where statements are made which
embarrass, and come close to defaming, the individual about whom the statements were made.
See, e.g., 600 West 115th Street Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 603 N.E.2d 930 (N.Y. 1992).
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. 349 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Cal. 1972).
13. Id. at 935.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 935-36.
16. Id.at 936.
1993]

20 DUKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICYFORUM
of California relied on the petition clause of the First Amendment to dismiss
Humboldt's claim.'7
While groups such as the Sierra Club are frequent SLAPP suit targets,
more often the suits are aimed at private citizens who lack the same legal
wherewithal or financial resources of the large public interest groups. Rick
Welker, a private citizen from Enfield, Connecticut, was concerned when he
heard that over 300 additional units were going to be added to the residential
development where he lived."8 Welker learned that the development plan was
approved in a closed session of the Planning and Zoning Commission and was
not recorded in the meeting's minutes, despite the fact that the development
would be the largest in town history. 9 Welker complained to the Connecticut
Freedom of Information Commission in October of 1988.20 After six months
of Commission hearings, the state overturned the approval of the project,
primarily because of the procedural irregularities.21 The developer then sued
Welker in June of 1989,22 charging tortious interference and slander of title.23
The case followed a pattern that is familiar in SLAPP suits. It was drawn
out, heightening Welker's anxiety. At the initial hearing for summary
judgment, the plaintiff and his counsel failed to appear.24 The case was
dismissed, but then the plaintiff claimed he never received notice of the hearing
from the defendant's counsel.' The defendant was unable to demonstrate that
notice was sent and the case was reopened.26 Further delays ensued, until
finally, in February. of 1992, the case was dismissed again.27 The plaintiff
appealed the dismissal to the state appellate court, and the appeal was finally
denied in December of 1992, four years after Welker made his initial complaint.28
17. Id. at 939. For more on the petition clause defense, see infra Part III. B.
18. Telephone interviews with Rick Welker ofEnfield, Conn. (Jan.7-8,1993); Shelley Emling,
Lawsuit Targets People Who Speak Out, HARTFORD COURANT, July 15, 1990, at B1, B4.
19. Telephone interviews with Rick Welker (Jan. 7-8, 1993).
20. Id.
21. Emling, supra note 18, at B1.
23. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike, at 2-3, Lizotte v. Welker, No.
CV-89-03652375, 1990 WL 276840 (Conn. Super. Sept. 24, 1990), aff'd, 612 A.2d 1176 (Conn.
App. 1992). Under Connecticut law, the elements oftortious interference are fraud, misrepresen-
tation, intimidation or molestation or malice and absence of privilege, as well as actual damages
resulting from the interference with a reasonable expectancy of profit. Blake v. Levy, 464 A.2d
52,54 (Conn. 1983); DOUGLAS B. WRIGHT & JOHN R. FITZGERALD, CONN. LAW OF TORTS 343-
47 (2d ed. 1968). If slander of title is recognized in Connecticut, other than in limited
circumstances governing false recording ofnotices, it appears to require falsity of publication and
malice. Id. at 349; Realty Co. v. Borough of Wallingford, 111 Conn. 352, 361 (Conn. 1930).
25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
II. THE IMPACT OF SLAPPs
Commentators from New York Governor Mario Cuomo and New York
Attorney General Robert Abrams to Judge Robert Bork have condemned the
SLAPP suit as one of the more troubling recent legal trends in our country.29
SLAPP suits are both a threat to healthy public dialogue and a direct attack on
First Amendment rights. Filing, or even threatening to file, these types of
intimidation suits may keep many people on the sidelines who would otherwise
take part in community debates. If people become afraid to speak out about
perceived problems in their communities, the result could be disastrous. In his
criticism of SLAPP suits, Attorney General Abrams posed the troubling
question of how much longer Love Canal might have gone unchecked if we
lived in a society without a significant level of public participation.3
' He
correctly characterized public participation in environmental matters as "the
cornerstone of our very survival as a planet."3' That cornerstone is now being
chipped away.
Love Canal represents an extreme example of how important citizen input
can be in environmental matters. Issues do not need to be as dramatic as Love
Canal, however, in order for citizen input to be important. A concern with
SLAPP suits is that they will create a distinct imbalance in many land use
planning decisions. 2 City planners rely on a balance of testimony among
developers, citizen groups, and other interested parties when making decisions
on development. Citizen input should not be viewed as a nuisance, but as a
constructive, useful and necessary tool in local planning decisions. Without
such input, planning decisions may be made with distinctly one-sided informa-
tion. Supporting this notion of broad participation, the Second Circuit wrote,
"citizen groups are not to be treated as nuisances or troublemakers but rather
as welcome participants in the vindication of environmental interests. 33
29. See Mario M. Cuomo, Executive Memoranda on approving L.1992, ch.767 (August 3,
1992) ("Punitive and needless lawsuits without substantial basis in fact or law should be generally
discouraged. But they should be discouraged all the more if, as there is reason to believe, they
deter public debate."); Robert Abrams, StrategicLawsuits Against PublicParticipation,7 PACE
ENVrL. L.REV. 33 (1989) ("SLAPP suits ... represent an attack on first amendment rights which
are at the heart of our democracy."); Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 838 F.2d
1287, 1303 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988) (opinion by Bork, J.) ("This suit
epitomizes one of the most troubling aspects of modem litigation: the use of the libel complaint
as a weapon to harass. Despite the patent insufficiency of a number of appellant's claims, it has
managed to embroil a media defendant in over three years of costly and contentious litigation.").
30. Abrams, supranote 29, at 35.
31. Id. at 35, 41.
32. See 600 West 115th Street Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 603 N.E.2d 930, 934 (N.Y. 1992)
(discussing the "impoverishment of the public forum" that could result if people become timid
inspeaking on decisions impacting the development of their community).
33. Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.2d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 1976), cert.denied,434 U.S. 902
(1977). This was a suit by environmentalists seeking an injunction restraining an increase in New
York City's public transportation fares and ordering enforcement of certain anti-pollution
1993]

What impact do SLAPP suits have on defendants and on future public
input into environmental and land use decisions? Unfortunately, the quantita-
tive societal impact of SLAPP suits is largely speculative. There are, however,
many examples of disturbing effects created by SLAPP suits. In one extreme
instance, an attorney for a defendant reported that the SLAPP suit ordeal was
so traumatic that the family actually moved out of state after the suit was
over.34 In another case, the Army Corps of Engineers was hearing testimony
on a proposed golf course in respect to which a SLAPP suit had already been
filed against one protester. The Assistant Counsel for the Corps said, "[a]t the
hearing, there were people saying that they had something to say, but felt they
could not .... We were concerned that the public hearing was being stifled by
the lawsuit.""
In addition to silencing individuals, SLAPP suits also inhibit group
participation. Kent Kammerer is a member of a Seattle neighborhood coalition
that is active in local politics and meets regularly to discuss city concerns.36
Some group members were targeted by SLAPP suits, and Kammerer says that
the potential for further suits has a discernable effect on his group.37 He
noticed formerly active citizens become much more cautious in their political
activity, even when they had not personally been SLAPP suit targets.38
Kammerer also reports that some members of his group now carry extra
homeowners' insurance policies to protect against the potential economic losses
caused by SLAPP suits.39 In November of 1992, the group hosted a sympo-
sium to educate its members and others from the community about the suits.4"
A somewhat different but important problem with SLAPP suits is the
additional burden that they impose on court dockets. Professors Pring and
regulations. The court spoke of citizen participation generally and ii' the context of the Clean
Air Act. Although this suit was not a SLAPP suit, the Second Circuit's support for public input
and its reasoning behind that support is clearly applicable in the contexts in which SLAPP suits
generally arise.
34. Ron Galperin, New State Law Tries to Take Punch Out of SLAPP Suits, L.A. TIMES,
(Valley Edition) November 17, 1992, (Business Section) at 12.
35. John J. Fried, DebateRages Over Developers' Lawsuits to HinderPublic Participation,
CHI. TRIB., June 23, 1991, at 1G. There are innumerable other examples of persons having gone
through SLAPP suits, describing the chilling effect of the ordeal. See, e.g., Greg Braxton, Builder's
Suit Mires Activist in CourtFight,L.A. TIMES, (Valley Edition) July 15, 1991, at B3 (Burbank,
California SLAPP target saying, "[w]hen you say something like this can have a chilling effect
on you, that is exactly the case"); Jay Gallagher, Activists Attack SLAPP Suits, GANNIT NEWs
SERVICE, April 28, 1992 (Executive director of New York environmental group calling chilling
effect "horrendous"). Rick Welker also reported that he is much less likely to speak out again
on almost any issue, and the press his case generated has likely chilled others. Telephone
interviews with Rick Welker (Jan. 7-8, 1993).
36. Telephone interview with Kent Kammerer, Seattle Neighborhood Coalition (Jan.7,1993).
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Id.
40. Id.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
Canan estimate that as many as one hundred or more SLAPP suits are filed
each year across the United States.4' Because one of the plaintiff's primary
goals in the SLAPP suit is to force the defendant into a drawn-out, expensive
court process, the cases often last for some time.42 Professor Canan reports
that on average SLAPP suit defendants prevail after thirty-six months of litiga-
tion.43
III. DEFENDING AGAINST A SLAPP SUIT
SLAPP suit plaintiffs rarely prevail in court. Defendants almost always
have adequate defenses against the charges of defamation, contract interference,
or other meritless claims." This section looks in some detail at the defenses
to defamation and interference with contract, the two most frequent SLAPP
suit charges.
A. Defamation
Defamation is the most common SLAPP suit charge45 and is defined as
an oral or written statement "which tends to injure reputation in the popular
sense; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the
plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or
opinions against him. 46 Defamation is comprised of "the twin torts of libel
and slander-the one being, in general, written while the other in general is
oral."'47 In analyzing a claim of defamation, it is important to distinguish
between public and private plaintiffs.4" If plaintiffs are public figures, they are
required to prove that the alleged falsehoods uttered by the defendant were
issued "with 'actual malice'-that is, with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."49 The Supreme Court's
definition of "public figure" is as follows:
41. Pring, supra note 1, at 5.
42. Rick Welker's case is a good example of this. See supranotes 18-28 and accompanying
text.
43. Canan, supranote 1, at 26.
44. Attorney Joseph Brecher, who has studied and written on SLAPP suits, believes that
defendants won 100% of SLAPP suits filed as of 1988. Joseph J. Brecher, The PublicInterestand
IntimidationSuits:A New Approach,28 SANTA CLARA L. REv. 105,113 (1988). Professor Pring
put the defendants' success rate at 77%. Pring, supranote 1, at 12. The various perceptions of
success rates may reflect differences in whether a particular suit is considered a SLAPP suit.
46. W. PAGE KEETON Er AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 111, at 773
(5th ed. 1984) (citations omitted).
47. Id.
48. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,327-28 (1974); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia,
Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 30-31, 78 (1971) (Marshall, J.and Harlan, J., dissenting).
49. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964).
1993]

For the most part those who attain this status have assumed roles of especial
prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive
power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes.
More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the
forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the
issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment.50
Examples of the first group of public figures are generally those thought of as
public servants, such as police officers and politicians. The second group of
public figures are those who thrust themselves into a particular public
controversy. In the SLAPP suit context, land use developers involved in public
approval processes such as rezoning and permit applications have been held to
be in this second category of public figures.5 Thus, the standard for defama-
tion with regard to such persons is much higher than it is for non-public figures.
In addition to the possible "public figure defense" to a defamation claim,
statements made by a SLAPP suit defendant may be protected by privilege.
Even if the defendant's statements were defamatory, they may be "absolutely
privileged" and thus legally permissible.52 The court in Walters v. Linhofheld
that even if statements criticizing a large scale development project were
defamatory, they might be privileged:
The defense of absolute privilege permits a defendant to escape liability for
conduct that would otherwise be actionable because the defendant acted in
furtherance of some interest of social importance which is entitled to protection
even at the expense of uncompensated harm to the plaintiffs reputation. The
interest may be one of the defendant himself, of a third person, or of the
general public. Proceedings for rezoning and development of a project of the
size of that proposed by plaintiffs fall within this "interest of social importance"
category.53
Absolute privilege may also exist if "consent is given to defamation."54 One
who invites comments which damage her reputation cannot claim defama-
tion. In Walters, the court held that if defamatory statements result from
invitations to comment on the issue giving rise to the defamatory comments, the
invitation to speak bars the defamation claim.56
50. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345.
51. See Walters v. Linhof, 559 F. Supp. 1231, 1235 (D. Colo.1983); Okun v. Superior Court
of Los Angeles, 629 P.2d 1369,1374 (Cal.), cert. denied sub. noma., Maple Properties v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, 454 U.S. 1099 (1981).
52. KEETON ET AL., supranote 46, § 114; Walters,559 F.Supp. at 1236-37.
53. Walters, 559 F. Supp. at 1236-37. See also,600 West 115th Street Corp. v. Von Gutfeld,
603 N.E.2d 930, 934 (N.Y. 1992).
54. KEETON ET AL., supranote 46, § 114.
55. Id.
56. Walters, 559 F. Supp. at 1237.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
A SLAPP suit defendant often finds herself facing a defamation claim
because she expressed her opinion. Public debates often become heated, and
exchanges can take on a bitter and personal tone. Citizens criticizing a
developer, for example, may make statements that the developer feels are
particularly inappropriate or embarrassing. The developer may then turn
around and sue the citizen. 7 It is important for SLAPP suit defendants-as
well as any active private citizen-to understand the limits of the constitutional
protection afforded opinions. In recent years, the law regarding whether
opinions are constitutionally protected has undergone modification. Tradition-
ally, there was broad protection of all communication that could be termed
opinion." In Milkovich v. LorainJournalCo., however, the Supreme Court
issued a notable ruling on the role of opinion in defamation law. The Court in
Milkovich granted certiorari to consider the Ohio Supreme Court's recognition
of blanket protection of opinions from defamation liability." The defendant
argued that in every defamation case, the First Amendment mandates an
inquiry as to whether a statement was one of fact or opinion, and that only
communications of fact are actionable." The United States Supreme Court
disagreed. The Court held that there was no constitutionally required opinion
exemption to defamation law.6" Instead, the Court said that one must look to
prior common law principles of defamation. Among the most significant of
these common law principles are the following:
1) Statements on matters of public concern must be capable of being proven
false before defamation can occur, and opinions void of provable false facts will
receive full constitutional protection 2
2) Statements which could not reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts
about an individual (e.g., hyperbole, parody) are protected.63
3) Culpability (i.e., malice) is required to show defamation when the issue
giving rise to the statement is one of public debate, making the allegedly
defamed person a public figure, or when the allegedly defamed person is
otherwise a public figure.
57. See Von Gutfeld, 603 N.E.2d at 931-32 (citizen saying a developer's permit application to
run a small business "smells of bribery and corruption").
58. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1,13-14 (1990) ("[C]omment was generally
privileged when it concerned a matter of public concern, was upon true or privileged facts,
represented the actual opinion of the speaker, and was not made solely for the purpose of causing
harm.").
59. Id. at 10.
60. Id. at 3, 8.
61. Id. at 10.
62. Id. at 19-20.
63. Id. at 20; see also Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 57 (1988); Old Dominion
Branch, No. 496, National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 283-87 (1974);
Greenbelt Coop. Publishing Ass'n v. Bressler, 398 U.S. 6,13-15 (1970).
64. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964).
19931

26 DUKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICYFORUM
Milkovich thus stands for the proposition that the threshold question in
defamation suits is not whether a statement might be held to be an opinion, but
whether the statement implies an assertion of an objective fact.65 Pure opinion
is still protected by pre-existing constitutional doctrine. Thus, only those
opinions implying an assertion of fact will be actionable.
Despite the heavy burden on the plaintiff and strong defenses for
defendants, defamation suits present a problem for SLAPP suit defendants. A
plaintiff can claim actual malice, and though unable to prove the malice, subject
the defendant to a potentially long and expensive round of litigation.
B. Interference With Contractand the Noerr-PenningtonDoctrine
SLAPP suit defendants are often charged with interference with contract
or other business torts66 when they petition the government for redress of a
grievance.' The defendant has a clear defense to these charges in the
constitutionally protected right to petition.' The First Amendment prevents
Congress from making any law which prohibits "the right of the people ... to
petition the Government for a redress of a grievance." 69 The Supreme Court
has characterized the First Amendment petition clause as one of the "funda-
mental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and
political institutions."7"
65. See Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049,1052-54 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,111 S.Ct.
1586 (1991) (applying Milkovich).
66. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, § 766 (1977):
Intentional Interference with Performance of Contract by Third Person: One who
intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a
contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing
the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the
pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the
contract.
RESTATEMENT (SEcOND) OF TORTS, §766B (1977):
One who intentionally and improperly interferes with another's prospective contractual
relation (except a contract to marry) is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary
harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, whether the interference consists
of (a) inducing or otherwise causing a third person not to enter into or continue the
prospective relation or (b) preventing the other from acquiring or continuing the
prospective relation.
67. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Butz, 349 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Cal. 1972). See text accompanying
notes 12-17.
68. A SLAPP suit defendant may also use the petition clause in less common SLAPP suit
charges, such as malicious prosecution. For example, the California Supreme Court has held that
the right to petition the government precludes a malicious prosecution suit brought by the
government against the petitioning party. See City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 645 P.2d 137,
vacated, 459 U.S. 1095, on remand,661 P.2d 1072 (1983); City of Fresno v. Frampton, 560 F.
Supp. 31, 34-35 (E.D. Cal. 1983).
69. U.S. CONST. amend. I.
70. DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937).
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
In Sierra Club v. Butz, the court relied on the petition clause to quickly
dismiss the plaintiff's SLAPP suit. The court held that "when a suit based on
interference with an advantageous relationship is brought against a party whose
'interference' consisted of petitioning the government body to alter its previous
policy a privilege is created by the guarantee of the First Amendment."'7
A First Amendment petition clause defense is often based largely on the
principles of the Noerr-Penningtonantitrust doctrine.72 This doctrine states
that parties undertaking legitimate petitioning of the government are immu-
nized from any civil cause of action by a third party injured by the petitioning
activity. This protection applies even when the petitioning party has a financial
stake in the issue giving rise to the petition.73 Though the doctrine was
developed in the antitrust area, courts have invoked Noerr-Penningtonoutside
of antitrust law,74
including applying it to SLAPPs:
The application of the Noerr-Penningtondoctrine has been applied outside the
narrow confines of antitrust suits and has been used to protect citizen's
communications with the government in a wide variety of cases. Most notably,
it has been applied to shield citizens from liability for petitions to a zoning
board .... !5
Therefore, even if a SLAPP suit defendant has afinancial interest in petitioning
the government, he is generally protected under the Noerr-Penningtondoctrine.
The Noerr-Penningtondoctrine does not, however, provide a complete
blanket of immunity for those wishing to petition. The doctrine's protection is
lost when the petitioning activity is a "sham."76
Actions constitute a sham if
the petitioning party is not seeking to obtain legitimate government action, but
looks to otherwise injure the opposing party.77 If the petitioning activity
"leads the fact finder to conclude that the administrative and judicial processes
have been abused,"78 the petitioning activity will not be protected.79 For
example, if a citizen group protesting a proposed housing project is acting, in
71. Butz, 349 F. Supp. at 938.
72. The Noerr-Penningtondoctrine evolved primarily from two Supreme Court cases: Eastern
Rail Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961), and United Mine
Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).
73. See Noerr Motor Freight,365 U.S. at 139 ("The right of the people to inform their
representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement oflaws
cannot properly be made to depend upon their intent in doing so.").
74. For a thorough discussion of the expansion of the Noerr-Penningtondoctrine, see Milton
Handler & Richard A. De Sevo, The NoerrDoctrineand Its Sham Exception, 6 CARDOZO L.
REv. 1 (1984).
75. Westfield Partners, Ltd., v. Hogan, 740 F. Supp. 523, 526 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
76. California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 511 (1972); Noerr
Motor Freight,365 U.S. at 144; Westfield PartnersLtd., 740 F. Supp. at 525.
77. Butz, 349 F. Supp. at 938-39.
78. CaliforniaMotor Transp. Co., 404 U.S. at 513.
79. Id.
1993]

fact, as a front group for a competing developer wishing to hurt his competitor's
interests, the group's appeal to a public agency will not enjoy constitutional
protection under the Noerr-Penningtondoctrine."0 The petition clause is thus
expansive but not absolute in its protection of petitioning for redress of
grievance.
IV. FIGHTING BACK: THE SLAPP-BACK
A party who is SLAPPed need not turn the other cheek. She can SLAPP
right back. Professor Pring argues that the SLAPP-Back, a counterclaim or
countersuit for damages by the SLAPP suit target, is the most effective long-
range tool for discouraging SLAPP suits."' There are a number of legal
grounds for a SLAPP-Back:
1) violation of U.S. or state constitutional rights,
2) violation of federal and state civil rights statutes,
3) abuse of process,
4) malicious prosecution and other state law torts!'
In many states there are statutes authorizing significant penalties for vexatious
litigation. 3 Connecticut law, for example, allows for treble damages when
lawsuits are filed without probable cause and with malicious intent to unjustly
vex and trouble another person."
Unlike SLAPP suits, SLAPP-Backs have succeeded in court. Perhaps the
most dramatic example of such a suit was a SLAPP-Back judgment against a
California agribusiness for $11.1 million dollars.' In 1982, three farmers
bought a newspaper advertisement accusing J.G. Boswell Company of opposing
a proposed canal in order to gain a greater market share in regional cotton
farming.' Boswell filed a libel suit against the farmers. 7 The SLAPP suit
failed and the three farmers filed a SLAPP-Back, alleging that Boswell's suit
80. See Landmarks Holding Corp. v. Bermant, 664 F.2d 891, 896 (2d Cir. 1981).
82. Id. at 20.
83. See, e.g., CONN. GEN. ST. ANN. § 52-568 (West 1958 & Supp. 1992); GA. CODE
ANN. § 51-7-81 (1992); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 600.2907 (West 1986).
84. CoNN. GEN. ST. ANN. § 52-568 (West 1958 & Supp. 1992).
85. Philip Hager, Appeal of Milestone DamagesCaseFails:State JusticesLet Stand an $11.1
Million PunitiveJudgmentAgainst a San JoaquinValley Agribusiness Giant For Unwarranted
Libel Suit, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 4, 1991, at A3; see also,Pring, supranote 1, at 19-20 (discussing the
background of the case).
86. Hager, supranote 85, at A3.
87. Id.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
was baseless and was meant to intimidate and silence political opponents.'
In 1988, the farmers were awarded $13.5 million (later reduced to $11.1
million), 9 $10.5 million of which was for punitive damages." In October of
1991, the California Supreme Court upheld the award.9'
In another instance of a successful SLAPP-Back, the West Contra Costa
County Sanitation District initially sued Alan LaPointe, a Richmond, California
environmentalist, for $42 million for opposing a proposed solid waste
incinerator. The SLAPP suit was filed against LaPointe and 490 unnamed
defendants after he filed a taxpayer action against the district contending that
the sanitation district had improperly used sewer bond money to finance the
proposed incinerator.93 LaPointe's claim led to a grand jury investigation
which confirmed his allegations.94 Attorney General John Van de Kamp
called the sanitation district's suit, "a belligerent and unfounded attempt to
strangle public debate."95 The sanitation district's SLAPP suit was dismissed
by a superior court judge, and LaPointe then sued for a violation of his First
Amendment rights.96 On October 6, 1992, a jury concluded that the sanitation
district, through its SLAPP suit, improperly sought to deny LaPointe his First
Amendment rights.97 Two days later the jury awarded LaPointe $205,000 in
damages.9" A request for $700,000 in attorney's fees is now before the
court.9
Although SLAPP-Back suits are intuitively appealing, they mean another
round of litigation for an often court-weary private citizen or local group.
Further court battles, even as a plaintiff, may not be tolerable or affordable for
many private citizens and local groups. However, as large SLAPP-Back awards
begin to receive media attention, the suits may become more appealing.
Moreover, as citizens and groups become more educated about SLAPP suits,
they will be more likely to seek vindication through the SLAPP-Back.
88. Id.
89. Id.
90. Id.
91. Id.
92. Todd Woody, SLAPP andSLAPP Back, THE RECORDER, Sept. 29,1992, at 1, available
in LEXIS, Nexis Library, RECRDR File.
93. Todd Woody, JuryFindsSLAPP Suit ViolatedActivist's Rights, THE RECORDER, Oct. 7,
1992, at 2, availablein LEXIS, Nexis Library, RECRDR File.
94. Id.
95. Woody, supranote 92, at 1.
96. Id.
97. San Francisco:Jury VindicatesEnvironmentalist,S. F. CHRON., Oct. 7, 1992, at D6.
98. Jim Doyle, Sewer Agency Must Pay Richmond Man $205,000 Damagesfor Suit Against
Environmentalist,S.F. CHRON., Oct. 9, 1992, at D8.
99. Todd Woody, Agency SLAPPed With Large Fee Request; EnvironmentalistWho Was
Awarded $205,000 Now Seeks $700,000 ForHis Counsel,THE RECORDER, Dec. 21, 1992, at 3,
availablein LEXIS, Nexis Library, RECRDR File.
1993]

V. OTHER JUDICIAL RESPONSES To SLAPP SUITS
SLAPP-Back suits are by no means the only way that SLAPP suits can be
addressed in court. Other means remain open to the courts, and in some cases
to the SLAPP target, to discourage SLAPP suits.
A. Rule 11
Along with the SLAPP-Back, sanctions associated with Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure'" offer a SLAPP suit defendant the most
effective tool for the vindication of her rights. Rule 11 imposes a duty on
attorneys to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have
determined that any papers filed with the court are 1) well grounded in fact, 2)
legally tenable, and 3) "not interposed for any improper purpose such as to
harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of
litigation.""' The standard employed by the courts to determine if an
infraction of Rule 11 has occurred is one of "objective reasonableness,"' 2 and
if a violation of the rule is found, sanctions are mandatory.0 3
Defense counsel fending off a SLAPP suit should consider pursuing Rule
11 sanctions as soon as the suit is filed."° If counsel finds that a case or
particular cause of action is not well-grounded in law or fact, or otherwise is
outside the scope of permissible conduct, she should immediately notify
opposing counsel that the action is baseless and that sanctions and costs will be
sought. °5 Prompt notice is essential to reserve rights and to provide the
plaintiff and her counsel with an opportunity to reassess their case.0 6 For
defendants faced with multiple causes of action, it is important to know that
100. FED. R. CIV. P. 11. This rule is a federal rule, limited to federal courts. There are often
state court equivalents to Rule 11. For surveys of the ways various states' rules compare to
federal Rule 11, see James G. Middlebrooks, The New Rule 11: Look Before Leaping, 34 N.C.
ST. BAR Q.32 (1987); Fredric C. Tausend & Lisa L. Johnsen, CurrentStatus of Rule 11 in the
Ninth Circuitand Washington State, 14 U. PUGET SouND L. REV. 419 (1991); Hon. George W.
Timberlake & Nancy Plank, AttorneySanctionsinIllinois UnderRllinoisSupreme CourtRule137,
20 LoY. U. CHI. L.J. 1027 (1989); Erik K. Yamamoto & Danielle K. Hart, Rule 11 and State
Courts: PanaceaorPandora'sBox, 13 U. HAW. L. REV. 57 (1991).
101. FED. R. Civ. P. 11.
102. Kapco Mfg. Co. v. C & 0 Enters., Inc., 886 F.2d 1485, 1494 (7th Cir. 1989).
103. FED. R. CIV. P. 11 ("If a ...paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court ...shall
impose... an appropriate sanction.") (emphasis added).
104. W. Mark Russo, Rule 11 Sanctions:PracticalConsiderationsfor Lawyers, MASS. LAW.
WKLY., June 15, 1992, at 51. Mr. Russo's article is a very good overview of the invocation of
Rule 11 in baseless suits. Our analysis in this section borrows from Mr. Russo's article.
105. Id. ("This notice should alert opposing counsel to the investigation, the duties imposed
upon counsel by the various procedural vehicles discussed and to the intention to take all steps
necessary in the interest of one's client, including the recovery of costs and the imposition of
sanctions. Finally, a request should be made for the dismissal of the action and/or the particular
causes of action.").
106. Id.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
Rule 11 sanctions are assessed as to each cause of action and valid causes of
action do not rescue frivolous ones. 7
SLAPP suit defendants should recognize that courts are often reluctant to
allow separate discovery as to Rule 11."08 It is important, therefore, to
conduct discovery in such a way as to maximize the chance of demonstrating
Rule 11 violations, while simultaneously defending the charges on substantive
grounds. An effective discovery tool to uncover evidence of improprieties is
the deposition of parties knowledgeable about the allegations.0 9 If informa-
tion is uncovered during discovery which indicates or supports a Rule 11
violation, opposing counsel should be alerted. Opposing counsel can then
reassess the claim and drop the action if it lacks merit."' Moreover, even if
the SLAPP suit filer voluntarily dismisses her case"' Rule 11 sanctions may
still be invoked."2
A common complaint by commentators regarding Rule 11 sahctions is the
inconsistency with which they are applied."' An appellate court reviews the
district court's decision on Rule 11 matters under the very deferential "abuse
of discretion" standard."4 Consequently, decisions made by district courts as
to Rule 11 matters are rarely disturbed. This lack of significant appellate
review, and consequent lack of appellate guidance, has fostered inconsistency
and uncertainty about when a violation of Rule 11 occurs and how severe
sanctions should be.
For the SLAPP suit defendant, this uncertainty as to the scope of Rule 11
may actually be beneficial. Several commentators have argued that uncertainty
107. Id.
108. Advisory Committee's note on Rule 11 proceedings, 97 F.R.D. 165, 198-201 (1983)
("[D]iscovery should be conducted only by leave of the court, and then only in extraordinary
circumstances.").
109. Russo, supranote 104, at 51.
110. Courts are split on the continuing duty to reassess a potentially frivolous claim. Most
jurisdictions seem to hold that one who signs a document is obligated to continually review his
position as new facts of the case come to light. See, e.g., Herron v. Jupiter Trasp. Co., 858 F.2d
332, 335-36 (6th Cir. 1988); Gaiardo v. Ethyle Corp., 835 F.2d 479,484 (3d Cir. 1987); Woodfork
by and through Houston v. Gavin, 105 F.R.D. 100, 104 (N.D. Miss. 1985). But see Thomas v.
Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 874 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that "a construction of Rule
11 which evaluates an attorney's conduct at the time a 'pleading, motion, or other paper' is signed
is consistent with the intent of the rulemakers and the plain meaning of the language contained
in the rule").
111. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(i).
112. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,395-98 (1989).
113. See, e.g., Marc P. Goodman, A Uniform Methodology ForAssessing Rule 11 Sanctions:
A Meansto Servethe End of ConservingPublicandPrivateLegalResources,63 S. CAL. L. REV.
1855,1857 (1990) ("Although Rule 11 was enacted and amended with noble intent, its existence
has created as many problems as itwas originally designed to resolve."); Carl Tobias, Rule11 and
CivilRightsLitigation,37 BUFF. L. REv. 485,485-86 (1988-1989) ("Confusion and inconsistency
have attended the rule's implementation ...
114. Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 405.
1993]

about the applicability of Rule 11 has had a chilling effect on questionable
litigation.1 5 Risk averse attorneys may hesitate to bring SLAPP suits if they
fear Rule 11 sanctions, and their fear will only be heightened by the great
uncertainty about when Rule 11 violations will be found and what sanctions will
be applied. This reaction should increase as SLAPP suit defendants use Rule
11 sanctions successfully.11 6
B. The POME Solution
Another way to weaken the effectiveness of SLAPP suits is to have judges
impose a higher evidentiary standard on those bringing suits against persons
participating in some form of public debate. In Protect Our Mountain
Environment,Inc. (POME)v. District Court,' the Colorado Supreme Court
established a three-part test to be used in suits involving citizen participation
in government decision-making. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the
court's test requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that:
1) the defendant's statements or actions lack either a legal or factual basis;
2) the statements or actions are primarily intended to harass the plaintiff; and
3) the statements or actions could likely adversely affect the legal interest of
the plaintiff' 8
If the plaintiff fails to satisfy this test, the suit is dismissed. Similarly, in a
dissent from the West Virginia Supreme Court in Webb v. Fury,Justice Neely
proposed that where the conduct which resulted in the suit is prima facie
protected by the petition clause of the First Amendment, the plaintiff should
have to plead more specific allegations than would otherwise be required."9
C. Attorney's Fees
The awarding of attorney's fees to a successful defendant could also
provide an effective mechanism for curtailing SLAPP suits. The American
115. See, e.g., Goodman, supranote 113, at 1857 (arguing that "the Rule has a 'chilling effect'
on the creative and novel arguments that attorneys have available to them."); Melissa K. Nelken,
Sanctions UnderAmended FederalRule 11-Some 'Chilling'Problemsin the StruggleBetween
CompensationandPunishment,74 GEO. L.J. 1313 (1986).
116. In two recent New York state cases, the court awarded SLAPP suit defendants the state
statutory maximum of $10,000 in costs under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1 and C.P.L.R. 8303-a, New
York's equivalents to Rule 11. Entertainment Partners Group, Inc. v. Davis, 590 N.Y.S.2d 979,
989 (1992); Gordon v. Marrone, 590 N.Y.S.2d 649, 657-58 (1992). In EntertainmentPartners,the
court held that the $10,000 fee shifting maximum applicable to C.P.L.R. 8303-a may be.granted
to each prevailing party rather than to the defendants as a group. 590 N.Y.S.2d at 989.
117. Protect Our Mountain Environment, Inc. v. District Court, 677 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1984).
118. Id. at 1368-69.
119. Webb v. Fury, 282 S.E.2d 28,47 (W. Va. 1981) (Neely, J., dissenting) (quoting Franchise
Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Bd. of Culinary Workers, 542F.2d
1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir.), cert.denied,430 U.S. 940 (1977)).
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
Rule generally provides that each party to a case pays its own attorney's
fees." ° However, federal courts have the power to award attorney's fees in
particular situations, such as when a party has willfully disobeyed a court order
or when "the losing party has 'acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for
oppressive reasons.""' Attorney's fees are also available as a Rule 11
sanction. 2 State courts, provided they do not conflict with a federal statute,
are free to exercise their discretion in awarding attorney's fees."
A federal court also may find statutory authority for the award of
attorney's fees in SLAPP suits. The Civil Rights Act, for example, allows for
the award of fees to a prevailing party if the suit was vexatious, frivolous, or
brought to harass or embarrass that party. 4 Defendants have successfully
used this Act in petitioning for counsel fees following the dismissal of a SLAPP
suit.1s
Unfortunately, the award of attorney's fees may not discourage SLAPP
suits in many cases. If a developer's project is worth several million dollars, it
may still be economically efficient to file a SLAPP suit knowing he may have
to pay the other side's attorney's fees, with the hope that the suit will at least
distract the opposition during the public hearing process.
Despite this practical limitation, attorney's fees hold promise as a means
of deterring SLAPP suits. As part of their defense strategy, defendants should
petition the court for attorney's fees following the dismissal of the SLAPP suit.
If courts are willing to use their discretionary powers broadly and are quick to
award fees in countersuits by the targets, SLAPP suits may become less
appealing to file and less onerous to defend.
D. Immediate Counterclaimor Countersuit
In many jurisdictions, certain SLAPP-Back claims may not be brought until
the SLAPP suit is settled on its merits. For example, in Connecticut a claim for
vexatious litigation may not be brought until the allegedly vexatious suit has
terminated in favor of the defendant. 6 The result of this inability to file an
immediate SLAPP-Back is that such suits are less frequently brought, and the
SLAPP suit defendant generally has to submit to the entire SLAPP suit.'27
Courts wishing to cut down on frivolous suits could adopt a rule whereby
defendants can immediately file a countersuit, thus expediting and perhaps
120. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soe'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975).
121. Id. at 258-59 (citations omitted).
122. FED. R. Crv. P. 11.
123. Id.
124. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 n.2 (1983).
125. Westfield Partners, Ltd. v. Hogan, 744 F. Supp. 189 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
126. Paint Prods. Co. v. Minwax Co., 448 F. Supp. 656, 658 (D. Conn. 1978).
127. See Joseph J.Brecher, The PublicInterestandIntimidationSuits: A New Approach, 28
SANTA CLARA L. REV. 105, 137-40 (1988) (discussing the example of Babb v. Superior Court,
479 P.2d 379 (1971)).
1993]

abbreviating an otherwise harrowing process. SLAPP suit defendants should
look at their state's procedural rules to determine when the various SLAPP-
Back claims are possible and file at the earliest allowable time.
VI. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES To SLAPPs
Many of the steps that courts might take to curtail SLAPP suits might also
be codified by legislatures. Two states, New York and California, passed
legislation in 1992 which specifically targeted SLAPP suits.'28 Several other
states have recently tried unsuccessfully to pass similar legislation.'29
The New York law covers "actions involving public petition and participa-
tion,"'30 and applies to actions filed by "a public applicant or permittee"
relating to "any efforts of the defendant to report on, comment on, rule on,
challenge or oppose such application or permission.' 3 1
Developers and other
SLAPP suit plaintiffs are considered public figures, requiring them to show
malice to recover for defamation.3 The law also permits defendants to
recover costs and attorney's fees, 33 compensatory damages, 34 and even
punitive damages. 35
The New York law also provides for rapid disposition of a SLAPP suit. To
survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff in cases involving public petition and
participation must show that the suit "has a substantial basis in law or is
supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or reversal
of existing law.136
The California law, which is somewhat similar to the New York statute,
provides defendants a special motion to strike if the action arises from an act
of a person exercising First Amendment rights in connection with a public
issue. 37 To avoid the enforcement of that motion, the plaintiff must show "a
128. See Act of Sep. 16, 1992, ch.726, 1992 Cal. Legis. Serv. 3029 (West) (to be codified at
CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.15 & 425.16) [hereinafter California S.1264]; Slapp Suits-Costs
and Fees, Compensatory and Punitive Damages to Defendants, ch.767,1992 McKinney's Session
Law News of New York 2010 (West) (to be codified in 1992 N.Y. Laws) [hereinafter New York,
Chapter 767].
129. See 1992 Va. S.424, 1992-93 Regular Session; 1992 R.I. S.2005, 1992 Regular Session;
1992 Md. H. 486, 398 Legislative Session, 1992 Regular Session.
130. New York, Chapter 767, supranote 128.
131. Id.
132. Id.
133. Attorney's fees are recoverable if the SLAPP was "commenced or continued without a
substantial basis in fact and law." Id.
134. Compensatory damages are recoverable if the suit was brought "for the purpose of
harassing, intimidating, punishing or otherwise maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech."
Id.
135. Punitive damages are recoverable when the "sole purpose" of the suit was the "harassing
...or otherwise maliciously inhibiting" of the defendant's First Amendment rights. Id.
136. Id.
137. California, S.1264, supranote 128.
[3:17

BEATING SLAPP SUITS
probability"13 that she will prevail on the claim.'39 In making its determina-
tion on the motion, the court is to consider the pleadings as well as supporting
and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability is based.4 '
If the motion to strike is granted, attorney's fees are automatically awarded to
the defendant.'4'
CONCLUSIONS
From the perspective of the plaintiff, SLAPP suits often work. Even if the
defendant ultimately prevails in court, the SLAPP suit's ulterior motives of
distracting, intimidating and silencing are often accomplished. Nevertheless,
there are proactive, decisive and potentially effective ways to deal with SLAPP
suits, both from the perspective of an isolated defendant and from that of the
overall legal community.
A SLAPP suit target should not panic. She should get a lawyer and take
an aggressive posture looking to eventually vindicate her rights through the
courts. The First Amendment petition clause and the difficult evidentiary
hurdles often faced in defamation claims make winning SLAPP suits difficult
for the plaintiff. With the advice of counsel, the defendant should use the
protections afforded by the Constitution and the courts to win the suit on the
merits. Additional actions the defendant should consider include a SLAPP-
Back suit, petition for attorney's fees, and petition for Rule 11 sanctions against
the attorneys and/or plaintiff.
From a societal perspective, SLAPP suits are a serious threat to balanced
input on important public concerns, particularly environmental and land use
decisions. Fortunately, there are a number of steps that can be taken by the
states to reduce SLAPPs. Legislation, like that in New York and California, is
a positive step toward reducing SLAPP suits. In enacting such legislation,
however, the legislators must be careful to balance the need to prevent SLAPP
suits with the needs of developers and others to file legitimate lawsuits. It
would be as offensive and unjust to obstruct the rights of developers with
overdrawn laws as it is to chill and obstruct the rights of activists with SLAPP
suits.
The courts can and should do more to control SLAPP suits. Courts should
be willing to raise evidentiary standards and the standard of pleadings when the
suit appears to infringe upon First Amendment rights. Requiring a solid factual
basis for each suit would cause frivolous and vexatious cases to be dismissed
more quickly. Judges could also impose sanctions where meritless suits are
aimed at First Amendment rights and could award attorney's fees to defendants
in such cases.
138. Id.
139. Id.
140. Id.
141. Id.
1993]

36 DUKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY FORUM [3:17
SLAPP suits are still a relatively new phenomenon and many judges and
attorneys may not yet be familiar with them. As the suits gain prominence and
practitioners become increasingly educated about what they are and cognizant
of their negative societal effects, the SLAPP suit should become increasingly
difficult-and more costly-to file.

Identifying and Beating a SLAPP Suit | 1993

More Related Content

Similar to Identifying and Beating a SLAPP Suit | 1993 (19)

Recently uploaded (20)

Identifying and Beating a SLAPP Suit | 1993