Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Craig Mariam and Rachel Wise, together with Associate Paulyna Garcia, secured an affirmance from the Nevada Supreme Court of a district court order denying a special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes. GRSM successfully argued that the defendants’ communications failed to satisfy the statutes’ good-faith communication requirement.
Nevada’s anti-SLAPP protections were designed to immunize a party from civil liability when, in good faith, the party engages in communications in furtherance of the right to petition or free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. The defendants sought to invoke these protections to defeat allegations that they procured an affidavit from a represented insurance broker to gain an advantage in pending litigation.
GRSM effectively established that the defendants could not satisfy the first anti-SLAPP prong because they offered no factual basis supporting a good-faith belief that the communications at issue were true or made without knowledge of their falsehood. The Nevada Supreme Court’s findings that those communications were made in connection with the litigation and directed at an interested party did not earn the defendants anti-SLAPP protection, as they could not clear the threshold good-faith requirement.
The Nevada Supreme Court further held that the “gist or sting” of the fraudulent misrepresentation and abuse of process claims focused on the defendants’ statements and conduct in procuring the affidavit, not their subsequent use of the affidavit in the litigation. This holding eliminated the defendants’ remaining anti-SLAPP theory, leading the Nevada Supreme Court to affirm the Eighth Judicial District Court’s order in its entirety.