Nader v. Maine Democratic Party
41 A.3d 551
| Me. | 2012Background
- Nader filed a six-count complaint in 2009 alleging abuses of process and conspiracy by MDP and Moffett to bar Nader from ballot access in 2004 across multiple jurisdictions.
- Nader alleged that MDP and Moffett filed 29 baseless complaints in 17 states and before the FEC within 12 weeks to distract and drain his campaign resources.
- In Maine, Nader claimed two Secretary of State complaints were dismissed as meritless, with subsequent appeals exhausted.
- The Superior Court granted MDP’s and Moffett’s anti-SLAPP special motions to dismiss, applying a two-step analysis and finding no lack of reasonable factual support or basis in law by Nader.
- Moffett sought attorney fees; the court awarded him $1 in fees and costs, prompting a cross-appeal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court (Me. Supreme Judicial Court) vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings to apply a revised standard at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maine's anti-SLAPP statute can dismiss claims at step two | Nader argues the statute should require prima facie proof of lack of merit | MDP and Moffett contend the statute allows dismissal when petitioning activity is shown | Remand; not sufficient at step two to dismiss without prima facie showing |
| What standard governs step two of the anti-SLAPP analysis | Nader seeks a traditional burden-based approach | MDP and Moffett favor a broader, converse standard viewing evidence against plaintiff | Court adopts prima facie standard; shifts burden to nonmoving party to show lack of merit and actual injury |
| Whether the anti-SLAPP scheme implicates constitutional rights to petition, open courts, and ballot access | Nader highlights fundamental rights implicated by ballot access and petitioning | Defendants argue the statute appropriately balances rights | Court recognizes constitutional concerns; remand to reassess under revised burden framework |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to Moffett | Nader opposes any recovery beyond actual costs | Moffett seeks fees under the statute | Fees and costs vacated on remand; outcome dependent on second-step findings |
| Whether the Maine anti-SLAPP framework should remain procedural rather than substantive | Nader argues it inappropriately burdens meritorious claims | MDP/Moffett view it as a proper procedural filter | Court cautions against treating the statute as substantive abrogation of common law; remand for proper, procedural application |
Key Cases Cited
- Schelling v. Lindell, 942 A.2d 1226 (Me. 2008) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework; step two burden on plaintiff to show lack of merit and injury)
- Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 847 A.2d 1169 (Me. 2004) (purpose and scope of anti-SLAPP; early dismissal considerations)
- Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster, 772 A.2d 842 (Me. 2001) (converse summary-judgment-like standard; influenced step-two analysis)
- Irish v. Gimbel, 691 A.2d 664 (Me. 1997) (MHSA context; procedural limitations and equal-protection considerations")
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 691 N.E.2d 935 (Mass. 1998) (statutory interpretation of ‘based on’ petitioning; open courts concerns)
- Godbout v. WLB Holding, Inc., 997 A.2d 92 (Me. 2010) (open courts constitutional guidance on access to courts)