297 P.3d 326
Nev.2013Background
- In December 2010, Stubbs gave a public comment speech at a Boulder City Council meeting alleging Strickland and her husband violated municipal licensure requirements and posted the speech online.
- In January 2011, Strickland (through Strickland) filed libel per se and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims based on Stubbs' online posting.
- Nine days after Strickland filed suit, and before Stubbs answered or any pleading was filed, Strickland voluntarily dismissed the action under NRCP 41(a).
- After the voluntary dismissal, Stubbs filed a separate action seeking damages and attorney fees under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute (NRS 41.620 et seq.).
- Strickland moved to dismiss the anti-SLAPP suit under NRCP 12(b)(5); the district court granted the motion, holding Stubbs had no standing to pursue damages and attorney fees after voluntary dismissal.
- Stubbs appealed the dismissal and also challenged the district court’s later denial of attorney fees and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anti-SLAPP action may be filed after voluntary dismissal of the original suit | Stubbs contends NRS 41.670(2) authorizes a separate action regardless of prior dismissal. | Strickland maintains a separate action is available only if a special motion to dismiss was granted. | No; anti-SLAPP damages/fees action may not proceed without a granted special motion to dismiss. |
| Whether NRS 41.670(2) requires a granted special motion to dismiss to permit a separate action | Stubbs argues statutory text allows separate action regardless of a granted motion. | Strickland argues separate action depends on the grant of a special motion to dismiss. | Yes; a separate action is available only if the district court granted a special motion to dismiss. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees and sanctions | Stubbs argued the complaint was filed in good faith to clarify or change the law. | Strickland contends the complaint lacked reasonable grounds and relied on misinterpretation. | The district court did not abuse discretion; good faith argument supported denial of fees/sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- John v. Douglas County School District, 125 Nev. 746 (2009) (anti-SLAPP standard; dismissal challenges)
- Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224 (2008) (rigorous standard of review for NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal)
- S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti, 138 P.3d 713 (Cal. 2006) (protects plaintiff's ability to discontinue without penalty)
- Argentena Consolidated Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga, 125 Nev. 527 (2009) (district court findings basis for attorney fees)