Ralph Nader v. Maine Democratic Party
2013 ME 51
| Me. | 2013Background
- Nader sued the Maine Democratic Party (MDP) and related entities after petition challenges to his 2004 ballot status were litigated in Maine.
- Melanson (state Democratic Party chair) and Tucker filed petition challenges against Nader; the Secretary of State rejected the challenges on the merits.
- Nader alleged in Maine counts that MDP directed or coordinated the Melanson and Tucker petitions, and sought relief for civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and related wrongful uses in Maine and other jurisdictions.
- MDP moved to dismiss under Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute and Rule 12(b); the Superior Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion on remand but later denied or deferred on Counts I-IV, while dismissing Counts V-VI.
- On Nader’s cross-appeal, the court ultimately dismissed Counts V-VI and vacated judgment on other counts, remanding to dismiss the entire complaint against MDP.
- This Court held that the anti-SLAPP special motion should have been granted because Nader failed to present prima facie evidence that any Maine petitioning activity was devoid of factual or legal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti-SLAPP requires prima facie evidence of devoidness of support. | Nader contends MDP’s Maine petitions were devoid of factual/legal support. | MDP argues anti-SLAPP applies if petitioning activities are involved and plaintiff fails to meet burden. | Yes; prima facie evidence required, but not shown. |
| Whether Tucker and Melanson petitions constitute petitioning activities under the statute. | Nader asserts Maine petitions by Tucker and Melanson were within anti-SLAPP. | MDP maintains these actions are protected petitioning activities. | Yes; Tucker and Melanson petitions fall within petitioning activity. |
| Whether Nader met his burden to show any Maine petitioning activity lacked support. | Nader alleged lack of factual/legal support for the petitions. | MDP contends the petitions had some factual/legal basis. | No; Nader failed to demonstrate lack of support for any Maine petitioning activity. |
| Whether Melanson’s and Tucker’s petitioning actions were devoid of factual/legal support due to statutory defects. | Nader argues defects undermine the petitions’ support. | MDP contends petitions had lawful basis under the statutes. | No; defects did not render the petitions devoid of support. |
| Effect of ruling on Counts V-VI (abuse of process/malicious prosecution outside Maine). | Nader appeals dismissal of Counts V-VI seeking relief. | MDP argues lack of Maine-based petitioning basis forecloses extraterritorial counts. | Dismissed; Counts V-VI affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nader v. Me. Democratic Party, 41 A.3d 551 (Me. 2012) (anti-SLAPP standard announced; burden-shifting framework)
- Nader v. Me. Democratic Party, 2012 ME 57 (Me. 2012) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; prima facie burden)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (S. Ct. 2011) (petitioning activity protected by First Amendment)
- Schelling v. Lindell, 2008 ME 59 (Me. 2008) (interlocutory appeal standard in anti-SLAPP context)
- Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (administrative appeal as petitioning activity)
- Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 655 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for evaluating petitioning activity in anti-SLAPP)