Anti-SLAPP protection

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute is Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.635-70.

Law summary

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law provides strong protections for individuals, including those who fairly and accurately report on matters of public interest. The statute protects any statement that is truthful or that is made without knowledge of its falsehood and communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest, i.e., “good faith communication.”

Legal actions

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law includes several features to protect publishers:

• Deadlines: Notably, the court can modify any deadlines outlined in the statute if such modification serves in the interests of justice.
• Special motion to dismiss: A special motion to dismiss must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint. The court will consider if the communication in question was made in “good faith” and in furtherance of free expression. The law also requires the court to consider whether the lawsuit against the communicator is likely to succeed.
• Appeal: Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law requires a special motion to dismiss appeals. Under NRS 41.660, appeals go directly to the state supreme court.
• Stay of discovery: If the motion is made, discovery is stayed until the ruling on the motion is finalized. However, the court can allow limited discovery to get relevant information.
• Accelerated hearing: The statute compels courts to rule on the motion within 20 judicial days after the motion is served.
• Attorney fees: If the defendant wins the special motion to dismiss, the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. In addition, the court may award an amount of up to $10,000 to the defendant. If the court determines the special motion to dismiss was filed frivolously, the court will award the other party.

Helpful cases

The Nevada courts provided clarity regarding the scope and limitations to the state’s anti-SLAPP in these cases:

Shapiro v. Welt (2018)

In response to Howard Shapiro’s attempts to become conservator for his father, Glen Welt, Rhoda Welt, Lynn Welt, and Michelle Welt published a website that contained allegations regarding Shapiro’s past debts, criminal history, and alleged maltreatment of his father. Shapiro and his wife, Jenna, sued for defamation, and the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the website constituted a “good-faith communication.” The Shapiros argued the anti-SLAPP statute was unconstitutionally vague and that the statements regarding the conservatorship action did not constitute an issue of public interest. The Nevada Supreme Court found the statute was constitutional, because it provided sufficient detail as to the conduct that was prohibited. The Supreme Court also ruled that public interest “should be something of concern to a substantial number of people.” The case was ultimately remanded for further proceedings.

Rosen v. Tarkanian (2019)

In 2016, Danny Tarkanian and Jacky Rosen ran against each other for a seat in the Nevada House of Representatives. During her campaign, Rosen ran an advertisement titled “Integrity” on YouTube and other social media platforms. In the ad, Rosen made three statements regarding fake charities her opponent created as “fronts for telemarketing schemes.” She ignored a cease and desist letter from Tarkanian and was sued for defamation. Rosen then filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss but a district court held she did not show the statements were made in good faith. Before the Nevada Supreme Court, Rosen submitted nine newspaper articles that stated Tarkanian was a registered agent for at least 13 fraudulent telemarketing schemes. The Supreme Court held that Rosen’s statements were made in good faith because the “gist or sting” of the statements were substantially true.

Herbert Moreira-Brown v.  Las Vegas Review Journal (2023)

Attorney Herbert Moreira-Brown brought defamation action against journalist Carri Geer Thevenot and the Las Vegas Review Journal over an article, which focused on a lawsuit that claimed another lawyer and Moreira-Brown sexually assaulted a third separate attorney. An appellate judge evaluated whether the article was a statement made in relation to litigation-related conduct. In doing so, the judge determined the article was directed beyond anyone with a true interest in the case and to the public. Furthermore, the article’s statements did not relate to substantive issues in the litigation. For that reason, the judge dismissed the case.

Legislative activity

Nevada’s statute has changed several times over the years, most significantly in 2013 and 2015. The legislature passed revisions to the statute in May 2015 as part of Senate Bill 444.

Of note

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute received an A from the Institute for Free Speech.