Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Nathan A. Huey, Senior Counsel Natalie A. Hammond, and Associate Lindsay A. Mullineaux secured a complete dismissal with prejudice for the firm’s client based upon application of Montana’s newly enacted anti-SLAPP statute, the Uniform Public Expression Freedom Act (UPEPA).
GRSM represented a Montana attorney who pursued damages on behalf of a woman who alleged injuries arising out of an automobile accident, as well as an alleged sexual assault a few weeks after the automobile accident. The defendant in the underlying action secured a dismissal of the sexual assault claim based on expiration of the statute of limitations, but the parties in the underlying action later settled the remainder of the case, including claims based on injuries sustained in the automobile accident.
Following settlement, the defendant in the underlying action sued GRSM’s client for malicious prosecution and abuse of process in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, alleging that GRSM’s client improperly pursued the sexual assault allegations on behalf of the alleged victim in the underlying action. The plaintiff in the new federal court action, who allegedly was responsible for both the automobile accident and the sexual misconduct, sought compensatory damages in the amount of $332,586.68 for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the sexual assault claim.
The GRSM team argued that this retaliatory lawsuit was barred by Montana’s version of UPEPA, which was enacted in May 2025, because it targeted protected petitioning activity and failed to state viable claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The plaintiff opposed the motion, challenging both the applicability of UPEPA in federal court and the merits of the dismissal motion.
In a comprehensive opinion, the district court judge agreed with GRSM’s arguments and held that UPEPA applied to the claims. The court determined that the challenged conduct qualified as protected activity under UPEPA and further concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish key elements of his malicious prosecution claim, including lack of probable cause and a favorable termination of the underlying action. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting the required elements for an abuse of process claim, including an ulterior purpose or improper use of legal process. As a result, the court granted GRSM’s special motion and dismissed all claims.
The GRSM team not only secured dismissal of the action, but also obtained an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses under UPEPA’s mandatory fee-shifting provision, with the amount to be determined in a subsequent ruling.
GRSM’s strategic use of Montana’s newly enacted anti-SLAPP statute, combined with a focused attack on the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims, resulted in a complete victory for GRSM’s client at the pleading stage and established the first federal court decision interpreting and applying UPEPA under Montana law.