Anti-SLAPP protection

New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law is the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

Law summary

The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act introduced protections against SLAPPs for the first time in the Garden State in 2023. The statute includes protection for any statement in connection with an issue of public interest made in a public forum or other place open to the public and any statement made in a media publication.

Like other states which passed the Uniform Act, New Jersey’s specifies three types of communication that do not apply to the law, including communication related to a sale or lease of goods or services.

Legal actions

The Uniform Act requires plaintiffs to prove early in cases that they have a legitimate claim. The act also contains key provisions to halt and counter costly, frivolous lawsuits.

• Special motion to dismiss: Defendants may file for a special motion no later than 60 days after being served a lawsuit.
• Stay of discovery: If the motion is made, discovery is stayed until the ruling on the motion is finalized. Likewise, if a party appeals, the stay remains in effect until the conclusion of the appeal. A court, however, may allow limited discovery if a party shows it necessary to help satisfy a burden.
• Interlocutory appeal: A party may appeal if their motion or order is denied.
• Accelerated hearing: The statute compels courts to hear oral arguments on the motion within 60 days after the motion is filed.
• Attorney fees: The court shall award court costs, attorney’s fees and reasonable litigation expenses to the moving if the moving party prevails, or responding party is the court determines the motion was frivolous.

Helpful cases

The following cases demonstrate why strong anti-SLAPP laws require procedural specificity. NJ courts, prior to the law’s passage in 2023, were less systematic in how they evaluated SLAPPs.

Cmty. Access Unlimited v. Rockcliffe (2012)

A dispute between neighbors living in a condominium for disabled individuals resulted in a special election call by plaintiff Sidney Blanchard and subsequent removal of defendant-then-member of the board Michelle Rockcliffe. A trial court dismissed the housing association’s claims for malicious use of process and abuse of process. However, Rockcliffe appealed stating the action was filed as a SLAPP suit and sought damages. An appellate court upheld the prior decision, ruling the defendant failed to provide proof of economic damage.

Cottrell v. Zagami LLC (2014)

Maryann Cottrell was sued for defamation by Zagami, LLC, for statements she made during a hearing on Zagami’s liquor license renewal in June 2006. Zagami’s defamation claim was dismissed by an appellate court on the grounds that the license renewal hearing was a “quasi-judicial” proceeding and that Cottrell’s remarks were entitled to absolute immunity. Following that dismissal, Cottrell filed an action against Zagami for malicious use of process and in violation of New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA), claiming that Zagami’s defamation suit was a SLAPP. Zagami filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a trial court granted Zagami’s motion. Cottrell appealed, and an appellate court reversed both determinations, finding the CRA applies to private actions like Cottrell’s. The New Jersey Supreme Court weighed in as well and added that Cottrell’s speech was entitled to immunity from “litigation privilege,” i.e., her criticism of Zagami at the license renewal hearing was considered protected speech because it was made in a quasi-judicial setting and concerned a matter of public interest.

Bajardi v. Pincus (2019)

Amid a contentious political climate in Hoboken, plaintiff Lane Bajardi, an outspoken critic at city council meetings, sued defendant Nancy Pincus, a self-described “political-satirist blogger,” for defamation over blog posts in 2012. Pincus and her lawyers requested a dismissal of the complaint, asserting the lawsuit was a SLAPP in a letter to Bajardi’s lawyers. Nonetheless, Bajardi took Pincus to court. A trial court dismissed Bajardi’s defamation claims and awarded counsel fees to Pincus. Bajardi appealed, and an appellate court reversed the judgment because the prior judge had not addressed actual malice and vacated the award of counsel fees.

Legislative activity

New Jersey’s law was introduced in June 2022 by Sens. Joseph Lagana (D-Bergen) and Jon Bramnick (R-Union) in the Senate and Assembly members Raj Mukherji (D-Hudson), Carol Murphy (D-Burlington), and Kevin Rooney (R-Passaic). Prior to its passing, lawmakers had introduced anti-SLAPP legislation every session since 2014 without making it into law.

Of note

The act is based on model legislation approved in 2020 by the Uniform Law Commission, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for uniformity of state laws.