Steidley v. Community Newspaper HoldIngs, Inc.
2016 OK CIV APP 63
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (the Rogers/Mayes/Craig counties District Attorney and two assistants) sued the Claremore Daily Progress and individual journalists for libel per se, seeking actual and punitive damages.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in March–August 2013; the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) became effective November 1, 2014.
- Defendants filed a special OCPA motion to dismiss on December 29, 2014 (after the statute’s effective date but well after the original suit), arguing the claims targeted protected speech and failed as a matter of law.
- The trial court did not hold a hearing within the statutory timeframe and entered an order deeming the OCPA motion denied by operation of law; Defendants appealed that denial under the OCPA’s appeal provision.
- Central legal question on appeal: whether the OCPA applies retroactively to causes of action filed before its effective date or is substantive (prospective only).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCPA applies retroactively to suits filed before Nov. 1, 2014 | OCPA can apply retroactively; trial court erred in denying motion | OCPA is procedural and may apply to pending suits; timely appeal authorized | OCPA is substantive (creates new defenses and mandatory remedies) and cannot be applied retroactively; OCPA did not govern this suit |
| Whether the OCPA creates a new defense that changes parties’ rights | Plaintiffs argued the statute alters substantive rights and thus is prospective | Defendants argued statute is procedural mechanism (anti‑SLAPP) and thus may be applied retroactively | Court held the new defense is substantive and changes defendants’ and plaintiffs’ rights — prospective only |
| Whether OCPA’s mandatory fee/sanctions provision is substantive | Plaintiffs: mandatory awards create new substantive remedies and increase liability | Defendants: fee provisions are procedural incentives for early dismissal | Court held mandatory fee/sanctions are substantive because they alter potential liability and remedies, so prospective only |
| Whether denial of the OCPA motion (because hearing wasn't held in time) was properly appealable | Plaintiffs argued OCPA did not apply (so no OCPA appeal) | Defendants relied on OCPA appeal provision; also sought judicial extension of filing deadline | Court affirmed denial of OCPA motion (because OCPA did not apply to this suit) and allowed appeal to stand on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Armer, 776 P.2d 847 (Okla. 1989) (presumption against retroactive operation of statutes unless Legislature clearly indicates otherwise)
- Cole v. Silverado Foods, 78 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2003) (statutory defense that defeats liability is an accrued right; amendments creating new defenses operate prospectively)
- Walls v. Am. Tobacco Co., 11 P.3d 626 (Okla. 2000) (amendment creating a private right of action constitutes substantive change not subject to retroactive application)
- Sudbury v. Deterding, 19 P.3d 856 (Okla. 2001) (increase in potential damages alters liability and is substantive, thus prospective)
- Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co., 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977) (newly recoverable damages create substantive rights and apply prospectively)
- Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 693 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2012) (describing SLAPP risks: chilling petitioning and misuse of meritless suits)
- Davis v. Cox, 351 P.3d 862 (Wash. 2015) (state anti‑SLAPP statute held unconstitutional under state constitution for invading jury province)