National Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-08787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In National Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, Judge Oetken denied reconsideration because Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law required evidence Adelson did not provide.
Defendant Sheldon G. Adelson’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the earlier denial of his special motion to dismiss remained in place. The plaintiffs were not required to obtain a different ruling in this order.
What happened
National Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson concerns Defendant Sheldon G. Adelson’s request to reconsider an earlier order denying his motion under Nevada’s law protecting certain speech-related lawsuits from dismissal. The earlier motion involved Adelson’s defamation lawsuit against the plaintiffs.
The court explained that Nevada changed its law after an earlier related case. Under the newer law, Adelson had to provide evidence that his defamation lawsuit was truthful or brought without knowing it was false. He provided no such evidence with his original motion, and the court also said it could not consider new evidence offered for the first time in seeking reconsideration.
Judge Oetken denied Adelson’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 48, leaving the earlier denial of Adelson’s motion in place.
The detailed version
- National Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson · No. 1:18-cv-08787
- James Oetken
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Defendant Sheldon G. Adelson moved for reconsideration of the court’s September 30, 2019 Opinion and Order. That earlier order denied Adelson’s special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, a law that provides a procedure for seeking dismissal of certain claims based on protected speech or petitioning activity.
Adelson argued that the court had overlooked its decision in a prior related proceeding. In that earlier proceeding, the court had applied a summary-judgment standard and concluded that Adelson had not shown a genuine dispute about whether the challenged communications were made in good faith. In the present case, however, the court had concluded that Adelson had the initial burden of producing evidence that his defamation lawsuit was a good-faith communication.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Nevada changed the anti-SLAPP statute in 2013. The former statute treated a special motion to dismiss as a summary-judgment motion. The post-2013 statute instead created a specific burden-shifting framework. Under that framework, the person bringing the motion must first establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is based on a good-faith communication.
Because Adelson submitted no evidence on that issue with his original motion, the court held that he failed to meet his initial burden under the current statute. The court also rejected Adelson’s argument that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine required the court to apply an “objective baselessness” standard to the anti-SLAPP damages provision. The court read the statutory text as clear and concluded that importing that additional standard would make little sense.
Adelson later submitted a declaration from L. Lin Wood, his counsel of record in the initial defamation suit, stating that the suit was brought without knowledge that its allegations were false. The court held that a party seeking reconsideration may not present new facts, issues, or arguments that were not previously presented. The court further stated that even if Adelson had met his initial burden, Plaintiffs would still have been entitled to prevail under the statute’s next step.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Adelson’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 48. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.