106 F.4th 19
1st Cir.2024Background
- Dana Cheng, a New York resident and political commentator, sued a Maine journalist and news outlet for defamation after being described as "far-right" and a "conspiracy theorist" in a Maine article.
- The suit was filed in federal district court in Maine under diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendants sought dismissal under both federal law and New York’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against baseless defamation lawsuits and mandates attorney fees for prevailing defendants.
- The district court chose New York law for the dismissal but later applied Maine law to the issue of attorney fees, denying fees to the defendants.
- On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed dismissal based on First Amendment grounds, bypassing the state law choice, and certified the fees question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine due to unresolved conflict-of-law issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s law governs attorney fees post-dismissal? | Maine law should apply, as suit was in Maine | New York law should apply, as plaintiff is NY resident and article harm occurred in NY | Issue certified to Maine SJC; no clear precedent |
| Whether law of the case doctrine bars state law fees claim | First Circuit's prior ruling excluded state law | Federal defense doesn’t bar state law fee arguments | Law of case doctrine does not bar fee arguments |
| Existence of true conflict of laws | No material difference in fee provisions | Conflict exists, statutes differ materially | Court found a true conflict between state laws |
| How Maine’s choice-of-law rules resolve the conflict | Maine interest in regulating local remedies | NY’s strong interest in deterring SLAPP suits by its residents | Choice is indeterminate, issue certified to SJC |
Key Cases Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (First Amendment limits to state defamation law)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (function of anti-SLAPP statutes in federal court)
- United States v. Matthews, 643 F.3d 9 (law of the case doctrine standard)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 995 A.2d 651 (Maine tort conflicts-of-law approach)
- Flaherty v. Allstate Ins. Co., 822 A.2d 1159 (conflict analysis in multi-state tort cases)
- Collins v. Trius, Inc., 663 A.2d 570 (Maine’s most significant relationship test for choice of law)