Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg
307 Ga. App. 356
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Adventure Outdoors filed a slander suit against Bloomberg and others arising from statements at a New York press conference about a public nuisance gun lawsuit.
- The trial court dismissed for failure to file the anti-SLAPP verification required by OCGA § 9-11-11.1(b).
- The court found the statements could be considered acts in furtherance of free speech or petition rights on a public-issue, and thus subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.
- The New York defendants argued the anti-SLAPP statute applies to non-Georgia citizens and protects statements made outside Georgia.
- Adventure Outdoors challenged (1) the applicability to non-residents, (2) the breadth of protected conduct, and (3) the verification requirement tied to merit review.
- On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding non-residents may be protected and the press conference fell within the statute, and that dismissal was proper due to failure to verify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of OCGA 9-11-11.1(a) regarding non-residents | Adventure contends non-Georgian defendants are not protected. | New York defendants are entitled to protection under the statute. | Non-residents may receive protection under 9-11-11.1. |
| Whether the press conference falls within 9-11-11.1(c) scope | Statements at press conference fall outside protected scope. | Statements pertain to an issue under consideration by the judiciary and fall within protection. | Press conference statements are within the statute's scope. |
| Effect of failure to file the verification under 9-11-11.1(b) | Merits of statements should be challenged; verification not essential to viability at the pleading stage. | Lack of verification warrants dismissal absent timely correction. | Dismissal proper due to lack of required verification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metzler v. Rowell, 248 Ga.App. 596, 547 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. App. 2001) (expansive definition of protected speech; requires verification for claims under 9-11-11.1)
- Hawks v. Hinely, 252 Ga.App. 510, 556 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. App. 2001) (verification required; consequences for noncompliance)
- Denton v. Browns Mill Dev. Co., 275 Ga. 2, 561 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2002) (statutory purpose to protect constitutional rights from abuse of judicial process)