Coker v. Sassone
432 P.3d 746
| Nev. | 2019Background
- Marco Sassone, a painter, sued Darrell Coker under Nevada deceptive trade practice and RICO statutes alleging Coker sold counterfeit copies of Sassone's work while advertising them as original signed lithographs.
- Coker filed a special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute (NRS 41.660), asserting his dissemination of artwork is protected expressive conduct and in the public interest.
- The district court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding Coker failed to show his communications were "truthful or made without knowledge of its falsehood," a statutory requirement, and Coker appealed.
- The Nevada Supreme Court clarified the standard of review for anti-SLAPP motions under the 2015 version of NRS 41.660 is de novo.
- On the merits, the Court held Coker did not meet the first prong of the anti-SLAPP test: he failed to show (1) he believed the works were originals when advertised, and (2) the challenged conduct was made in direct connection with an issue of public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sassone) | Defendant's Argument (Coker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether de novo review applies to denials/grants of anti-SLAPP motions under the 2015 NRS 41.660 | Implicitly accepted; did not contest the standard here | 2015 amendment returns motion to summary-judgment-like review so de novo review applies | De novo review applies under the 2015 statute |
| Whether Coker’s conduct is a "good faith communication" truthful or made without knowledge of falsehood | Sassone: Coker advertised counterfeits as originals, so communications were not truthful | Coker: he purchased prints from a bulk supplier and did not know they were counterfeit; thus communications were in good faith | Held for Sassone—Coker failed to present evidence he believed the works were originals; therefore did not meet the statutory truth/knowledge requirement |
| Whether the challenged conduct was in direct connection with an issue of public interest | Sassone: the injury is private (fraud, false advertising), not public-interest speech | Coker: dissemination of creative works and public access is a public interest, so his conduct is protected | Held for Sassone—selling counterfeit works as originals is not sufficiently linked to the asserted public interest in dissemination of creative works |
| Whether the district court should reach the second prong (plaintiff’s prima facie showing) | Sassone: because Coker failed prong one, second prong not reached | Coker: (contingent) argued the case should be dismissed under anti-SLAPP | Court did not reach second prong because Coker failed the first prong |
Key Cases Cited
- Stubbs v. Strickland, 129 Nev. 146, 297 P.3d 326 (Nev. 2013) (anti-SLAPP purpose and protection overview)
- John v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 125 Nev. 746, 219 P.3d 1276 (Nev. 2009) (prior de novo review framing prior to statutory amendments)
- Delucchi v. Songer, 133 Nev. 290, 396 P.3d 826 (Nev. 2017) (interpreting NRS 41.660 and statutory categories of protected activity)
- Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev. 35, 389 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2017) (discussing burden shifts and review standard under 2013 amendments)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057, 393 P.3d 905 (Cal. 2017) (adopting de novo review for anti-SLAPP motions and standard for considering evidence)
- Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) (anti-SLAPP protection for media distribution of photographs; discussed public-interest element)
- Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Assocs., Inc., 946 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (articulating guiding principles for "public interest")