Cheng v. Guo

Background

Logan Cheng sued Wengui Guo under Nevada Revised Statutes § 41.670(1)(c), part of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law. “SLAPP” refers to a lawsuit allegedly used to intimidate someone exercising speech or petition rights. The case followed Guo’s Nevada defamation lawsuit against Cheng based on statements Cheng posted on Twitter accusing Guo of fraud, espionage, money laundering, forgery, intimidation, and collusion with the Chinese government.

The Nevada court granted Cheng’s special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute. It found that Cheng’s statements fell within protected categories of speech and that Guo had not made the required initial showing that he had a probability of winning his claims. The Nevada court dismissed Guo’s claims with prejudice and later awarded Cheng $1,984.84 in costs, $184,955.55 in attorney’s fees, and $10,000 in damages, for a total judgment of $196,940.39. The parties later stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of Cheng’s malicious-prosecution claim and his claim seeking enforcement of the Nevada judgment.

The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

Both parties moved for partial summary judgment, which asks the court to decide issues without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact important to the outcome.

Cheng sought a ruling that Guo was liable for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute. Guo sought summary judgment on damages. He argued that Cheng should be barred from presenting damages evidence because Cheng had not disclosed a damages calculation or supporting documents, that Cheng lacked standing to recover alleged business damages, and that the record did not support compensatory or punitive damages. Guo also argued that Cheng should be prevented from claiming that the Nevada defamation case showed Guo acted with culpable intent.

Compensatory Damages and Attorney’s Fees

The court held that Nevada law made the grant of a special anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the only prerequisite to a prevailing defendant’s entitlement to compensatory damages and attorney’s fees under § 41.670(1)(c). Because the Nevada court had granted Cheng’s special motion to dismiss, the court granted Cheng’s motion for summary judgment on liability for compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.

The court explained that this ruling concerned liability, not the amount of damages or what evidence Cheng might later be permitted to present. Cheng’s failure to provide a numerical calculation could prevent him from proposing a specific amount or relying on certain evidence at a later stage, but it did not eliminate Guo’s liability under the statute.

Punitive Damages

The court denied Cheng’s motion for summary judgment on liability for punitive damages. Nevada law requires clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice. The court rejected Cheng’s argument that a successful anti-SLAPP motion automatically established entitlement to punitive damages. Unlike compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, punitive damages required proof of the defendant’s culpable state of mind.

The court found a material factual dispute about whether Guo acted with the required malice when he filed and maintained the Nevada defamation case. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Guo, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Guo did not act with oppression, fraud, or malice. The court therefore did not decide Guo’s separate judicial-estoppel argument.

Guo’s Motion

The court denied Guo’s motion for partial summary judgment. It concluded that Guo’s discovery, standing, and evidentiary arguments did not establish that he was entitled to judgment on the issue of liability for damages. The court declined at that stage to resolve whether Cheng could recover alleged business damages, while noting Cheng’s position that he sought damages for injury to his own business and professional reputation rather than damages belonging to the hotel.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that Cheng’s motion was granted in part on liability for compensatory damages and attorney’s fees and denied in part on liability for punitive damages. Guo’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The parties were directed to confer about next steps and submit a joint letter by October 4, 2022.