Stay Public Expression Protection Anti SLAPP

Stay

Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA)

 

SECTION 4. STAY.

 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) through (g), on the filing of a motion under Section 3:

(1) all other proceedings between the moving party and responding party, including discovery and a pending hearing or motion, are stayed; and

(2) on motion by the moving party, the court may stay a hearing or motion involving another party, or discovery by another party, if the hearing or ruling on the motion would adjudicate, or the discovery would relate to, an issue material to the motion under Section 3.

 

(b) A stay under subsection (a) remains in effect until entry of an order ruling on the motion under Section 3 and expiration of the time under Section 9 for the moving party to appeal the order.

 

(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g), if a party appeals from an order ruling on a motion under Section 3, all proceedings between all parties in the action are stayed. The stay remains in effect until the conclusion of the appeal.

 

(d) During a stay under subsection (a), the court may allow limited discovery if a party shows that specific information is necessary to establish whether a party has satisfied or failed to satisfy a burden under Section 7(a) and the information is not reasonably available unless discovery is allowed.

 

(e) A motion under Section 10 for costs, attorney's fees, and expenses is not subject to a stay under this section.

 

(f) A stay under this section does not affect a party's ability voluntarily to [dismiss] [nonsuit] a [cause of action] or part of a [cause of action] or move to [sever] a [cause of action].

 

(g) During a stay under this section, the court for good cause may hear and rule on:

(1) a motion unrelated to the motion under Section 3; and

(2) a motion seeking a special or preliminary injunction to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety.

 

Legislative Note:

  • In subsection (f), a state should use the term "dismiss" or "nonsuit" in accordance with its procedures and customs. The state also should substitute its term for the term "[dismiss] [nonsuit]" in Section 7(b) and (c).
  • If a state does not use the term "sever" to describe a motion to sever, the state should use its comparable term in subsection (f).

 

Comments

§ 4 comment 1.

  • Section 4 furthers the purpose of the Act by protecting a moving party from the burdens of litigation — which include not only discovery, but responding to motions and other potentially abusive tactics — until the court adjudicates the motion and the moving party's appellate rights with respect to the motion are exhausted.

§ 4 comment 2 ¶ 1.

  • Section 4(a)(1) provides that the stay only applies to proceedings between the parties to the motion, but Section 4(a)(2) allows the moving party to seek a stay of proceedings and discovery between other parties if there are legal or factual issues at play in those proceedings that are material to the party's motion.
  • Otherwise stated, if a defendant moves to dismiss a plaintiff's cause of action, that motion should not stay proceedings or discovery between the plaintiff and other defendants—or between other defendants themselves—unless those proceedings involve legal or factual issues that are material to the motion, or the discovery is relevant to the motion.

§ 4 comment 2 ¶ 2.

  • By way of illustration, a candidate for political office sues two defendants — his opponent, for defamation over comments made about the plaintiff during the campaign, and his opponent's campaign manager, for hacking into the plaintiff's campaign's computer files and erasing valuable donor lists and other data.
  • Only the plaintiff's opponent moves to dismiss under the Act; the campaign manager does not.
  • In that case, the plaintiff could still proceed with discovery and dispositive motions against the campaign manager, because the claim concerning the hacking is entirely unrelated to the defamation claim.
  • The moving defendant has no interest that would be affected by the hacking claim.
  • But under slightly altered facts, a different outcome might exist: The plaintiff alleges that (1) the opposing campaign manager violated the plaintiff's privacy rights by stealing sensitive personal information in the hacking incident; and (2) the opposing candidate violated the plaintiff's privacy rights by disclosing that sensitive personal information in a speech.
  • Again, the opposing candidate moves to dismiss under the Act; the campaign manager does not.
  • In that case, the causes of action are so interrelated that the moving defendant would not be able to protect his interests without participating in the case against his co-defendant—something he would not have to do if he prevails on the motion.
  • In such an example, the court should grant a request to stay the proceedings as between the plaintiff and non-moving defendant, because the moving defendant would have no way of protecting his interests without participating in the case.

§ 4 comment 3 ¶ 1.

  • Section 4(c) provides that all proceedings between all parties in the case are stayed if a party appeals an order under the Act.
  • This subsection protects a moving party from having to battle related claims — some of which might be subject to a motion under the Act and some which are not—at the same time in two different courts.
  • For example, if two plaintiffs file causes of action against a single defendant, and the defendant only moves to dismiss against one plaintiff but not the other, the defendant should be able to appeal a denial of that motion without also having to simultaneously defend related causes of action (albeit ones not subject to the Act) in the trial court brought by the other plaintiff.

§ 4 comment 3 ¶ 2.

  • By way of illustration, multiple plaintiffs — all contestants on a reality TV show contest — sue one defendant — the TV producer — in a single case for their negative treatment on the show.
  • Each plaintiff's claim is distinct and centers on separate statements. The defendant files a motion to dismiss under the Act against only one plaintiff.
  • The motion is denied; the defendant appeals under Section 9.
  • At that point, all the proceedings are stayed, because the defendant should not be required to try claims in the trial court while appealing other claims from the same case in the appellate court.

§ 4 comment 3 ¶ 3.

  • To the extent any party not subject to the motion desires to move forward in the trial court on what it believes are unrelated causes of action while the appeal of the motion's order is pending, it retains the right under Section 4(f) to request a severance of those causes of action.

§ 4 comment 4.

  • Section 4(d) provides the court with discretion to permit a party to conduct specified, limited discovery aimed at the sole purpose of collecting enough evidence to meet its burden or burdens under Section 7(a) of the Act.
  • This provision recognizes that a party may not have the evidence it needs — for example, evidence of another individual's state of mind in a defamation action — prior to filing or responding to a motion.
  • The provision allows the party to attempt to obtain that evidence without opening the case up to full-scale discovery and incurring those burdens and costs.

§ 4 comment 5.

  • Section 4(g) serves the ultimate purpose of the Act: to allow a party to avoid the expense and burden of frivolous litigation until the court can determine that the claims are not frivolous.
  • In that connection, a court should be free to hear any motion that does not affect the moving party's right to be free from an abusive cause of action, including a motion to conduct discovery on causes of action unrelated to the cause of action being challenged under the Act, and motions for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety.

 

 

 

CONTENTS OF THE UNIFORM PUBLIC EXPRESSION PROTECTION ACT

 

OVERVIEW

 

SECTION 1 ... SHORT TITLE

 

SECTION 2 ... SCOPE

 

SECTION 3 ... SPECIAL MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF

 

SECTION 4 ... STAY

 

SECTION 5 ... HEARING

 

SECTION 6 ... PROOF

 

SECTION 7 ... [DISMISSAL OF] [STRIKING] CAUSE OF ACTION IN WHOLE OR PART

 

SECTION 8 ... RULING

 

SECTION 9 ... APPEAL

 

SECTION 10 ... COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND EXPENSES

 

SECTION 11 ... CONSTRUCTION

 

SECTION 12 ... UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION

 

SECTION 13 ... TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

 

[SECTION 14 ... SAVINGS CLAUSE]

 

[SECTION 15 ... SEVERABILITY]

 

[SECTION 16 ... REPEALS; CONFORMING AMENDMENTS]

 

SECTION 17 ... EFFECTIVE DATE

 

UNIFORM LAWS PROJECT

 

Drafting Committee for a Uniform Anti-SLAPP Act (mostly lately called the "Uniform Public Expression Protection Act"), began its project in 2017 and hopes to submit final Uniform Act by 2020. The author of this website, Jay D. Adkisson, is the American Bar Association's Business Law Section Adviser to this Committee, and the originator of this Uniform Law Commission project. Click here for more.

 

ARTICLES ON ANTI-SLAPP

 

ARTICLES CURRENT

 

2020.08.29 ... Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Re-Introduced In Congress But Needs Updating

__________

More Articles

 

UNITED STATES ANTI-SLAPP LAWS

 

Arizona  ..... A.R.S. § 12-751, et seq.

 

Alabama ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Alaska ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Arkansas  ..... A.C.A. § 16-63-502, et seq.

 

California  ..... C.C.P. § 425.16, et seq.

 

Colorado ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Connecticut ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Delaware  ..... 10 Del.C. § 8136, et seq.

 

Florida  ..... F.S. § 768.295

 

Georgia  ..... Ga.C. § 9-11-11.1.

 

Hawaii  ..... HRS § 634F-1, et seq.

 

Idaho ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Illinois  ..... 735 ILCS 110/1, et seq.

 

Indiana  ..... I.C. § 34-7-7-1, et seq.

 

Iowa ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Kansas  ..... Kan.Stat. § 60-5320

 

Kentucky ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Louisiana  ..... C.C.P. Art. 971

 

Maine  ..... 14 Me.R.S. § 556

 

Maryland  ..... MD Code, Courts & Jud. Proceedings § 5-807

 

Massachusetts  ..... M.G.L. 231 § 59H

 

Michigan ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Minnesota  ..... Mn.Stat. § 554.01, et seq.

 

Mississippi ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Missouri  ..... Mo.Stat. § 537.528

 

Montana ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Nebraska  ..... Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-21, 242, et seq.

 

Nevada  ..... N.R.S. § 41.635, et seq.

 

 

New Hampshire ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

New Jersey ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

New Mexico  ..... N.Mex.Stat. § 38-2-9.1, et seq.

 

New York  ..... N.Y.Civ.Rights.L. § 70-a.

 

North Carolina ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

North Dakota ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Ohio ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Oklahoma  ..... Okla.Stat. § 12-1430, et seq.

 

Oregon  ..... O.R.S. § 31.150, et seq.

 

Pennsylvania  ..... 27 Pa.C.S.A. § 7707.

 

Rhode Island  ..... R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-33-1, et seq.

 

South Carolina ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

South Dakota ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Tennessee  ..... Tenn.Stat. § 4-21-1001, et seq.

 

Texas  ..... Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 27.001, et seq.

 

Utah  ..... Utah Code § 78B-6-1401, et seq.

 

Vermont  ..... 12 V.S. § 1041.

 

Virginia ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Washington  ..... Wa.Stat. § 4.24.525.

 

West Virginia ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Wisconsin ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Wyoming ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

District of Columbia  ..... D.C.St. § 16-5501, et seq.

 

Guam ..... 7 G.C.A. § 17101, et seq.

 

Puerto Rico ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

U.S. Virgin Islands ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION: Speak Free Act of 2015 (not enacted, presumed dead).

 

 

CONTENTS OF THE UNIFORM PUBLIC EXPRESSION PROTECTION ACT

 

OVERVIEW

 

SECTION 1 ... SHORT TITLE

 

SECTION 2 ... SCOPE

 

SECTION 3 ... SPECIAL MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF

 

SECTION 4 ... STAY

 

SECTION 5 ... HEARING

 

SECTION 6 ... PROOF

 

SECTION 7 ... [DISMISSAL OF] [STRIKING] CAUSE OF ACTION IN WHOLE OR PART

 

SECTION 8 ... RULING

 

SECTION 9 ... APPEAL

 

SECTION 10 ... COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND EXPENSES

 

SECTION 11 ... CONSTRUCTION

 

SECTION 12 ... UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION

 

SECTION 13 ... TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

 

[SECTION 14 ... SAVINGS CLAUSE]

 

[SECTION 15 ... SEVERABILITY]

 

[SECTION 16 ... REPEALS; CONFORMING AMENDMENTS]

 

SECTION 17 ... EFFECTIVE DATE

 

OTHER INFORMATIONAL WEBSITES

by Jay D. Adkisson

 

  • Jay Adkisson - More about Jay D. Adkisson, background, books, articles, speaking appearances.

 

  • Captive Insurance Companies - Licensed insurance companies formed by the parent organization to handle the insurance and risk management needs of the business, by the author of the best-selling book on the topic: Adkisson's Captive Insurance Companies.

 

  • Asset Protection Book - The all-time best-selling book on asset protection planning by Jay Adkisson and Chris Riser.

 

  • Judgment Collection - An explanation of common creditor remedies, strategies and tactics to enforce a judgment, including a discussion of common debtor asset protection strategies.

 

  • Voidable Transactions - Discussion of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (a/k/a 2014 Revision of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act) and fraudulent transfer law in general.

 

  • Private Retirement Plans - An exploration of a unique creditor exemption allowed under California law which can be very beneficial but is often misused.

 

  • Charging Orders - The confusing remedy against a debtor's interest in an LLC or partnership is explained in reference to the Uniform Partnership Act, the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act.

 

  • Protected Series LLCs - An examination of the single most complex statutory legal structure yet created, with particular reference to the Uniform Protected Series Act of 2017.

 

  • California Enforcement of Judgments Law - Considers the topic of judgment enforcement in California, including the California Enforcement of Judgments Law and other laws related to California creditor-debtor issues.

 

© 2020 by Jay D. Adkisson. All Rights Reserved. No claim to original government works. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction. Questions about this website should be directed to jay [at] jayad.com or by phone to 702-953-9617 or by fax to 877-698-0678. This website is https://antislapplaws.com