2020 IL App (1st) 190602-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Nicole Basile, an Illinois resident and former Los Angeles payroll accountant, sued The Hollywood Reporter (published by Prometheus) over a December 2014 article that referenced a Sony Pictures hack and mentioned the name “Nicole Basile” in connection with emails pointing to leaked files.
- Basile originally sued in federal court for defamation per se, defamation per quod, and false light; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendant, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after a diversity defect was discovered.
- Basile refiled in Cook County state court within the statutory period, adding a defamation per quod claim alleging special damages.
- Prometheus moved to dismiss under section 2-619 and argued California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied and required early dismissal; the trial court denied the motion, ruling the complaint would survive under either California’s statute or Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act (CPA).
- Prometheus obtained leave to pursue a permissive interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(9), challenging the trial court’s denial; the appellate court had to first determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 306(a)(9) permits interlocutory appeal of a denial of a dismissal motion based solely on a foreign (California) anti-SLAPP statute | Rule 306(a)(9) applies because the trial court denied dismissal and discussed the Illinois CPA in its ruling | Rule 306(a)(9) allows review of the denial because the court ruled the motion would fail under either Illinois or California law | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Rule 306(a)(9) applies only to denials of motions filed under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act; Prometheus’s motion relied on California law, so the rule does not authorize interlocutory review |
| Whether the trial court’s alternative statement that dismissal would fail under the Illinois CPA converts a California-based motion into one under the CPA for Rule 306(a)(9) purposes | The court’s alternative reasoning made the CPA part of the ruling, enabling interlocutory review | The alternative discussion does not transform the motion into one “under the Citizen Participation Act” | Held: No — the CPA discussion was not crucial and did not make the original California-based motion a CPA motion; Rule 306(a)(9) must be strictly construed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (Ill. 2012) (defines SLAPPs and explains rationale for anti‑SLAPP statutes)
- Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (describes traditional SLAPP paradigm)
- McCarthy v. Taylor, 2019 IL 123622 (Ill. 2019) (scope of a supreme court rule is a question of law reviewed de novo; interpret rules like statutes)
- In re Michael D., 2015 IL 119178 (Ill. 2015) (plain language of a rule controls interpretation)
- Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 2007) (choice‑of‑law analysis required only when difference in law will affect outcome)
- Mund v. Brown, 393 Ill. App. 3d 944 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (no interlocutory appeal exists unless a supreme court rule grants it)