Title: Williams v. Lazer

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

on

187 Nev. Advance Opinion A4t
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAPHNE WILLIAMS, No. 80350
Appellant,

vs. FILED
CHARLES “RANDY” LAZER,

 

Appeal from a district court order denying an anti-SLAPP

Respondent. SEP 16 a

special motion to dismiss. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Joseph Hardy, Jr., Judge.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, and Mare J. Randazza and Alex J. Shepard,
Las Vegas,
for Appellant.

‘TRILAW and Adam R. Trippiedi, Henderson,
for Respondent.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and Arianna Marie Demas,
New York, New York; American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Nicole
C. Levy, Las Vegas,

for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and American
Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.

Law Offices of Clyde DeWitt and Clyde F. DeWitt, Las Vegas,
for Amicus Curiae First Amendment Lawyers Association.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.

AI WFO

 

 
OPINION

 

By the Court, CADISH,

‘This appeal presents issues concerning the scope of Nevada’s
anti-SLAPP statutory protections, including what the defendant must show
to meet the statute's good faith standard for protected speech, how the
statute works with common law-based privileges, and what is required of
the plaintiff in terms of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits of
his claim in order to proceed. After respondent threatened to sue appellant
over a text message that he perceived as defamatory, appellant filed a
‘complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), alleging that
respondent acted unprofessionally and unethically in a real estate matter.
Respondent filed the underlying tort complaint based on appellant's NRED
complaint. Appellant, claiming that the anti-SLAPP statute and absolute
litigation privilege protected her from liability, moved to dismiss. The
district court denied the motion, concluding that the statements did not
meet the good faith standard for protected speech, the litigation privilege
did not necessarily apply, and respondent showed a probability of prevailing
on the merits of his claims.

On this record, we conclude that appellant met the good faith
standard under the anti-SLAPP framework because her statements were
either opinions, were truthful, or were made without knowledge of their
falsehood, as supported by her sworn affidavit. We further conclude that
the absolute litigation privilege applies at the second prong of the anti-
SLAPP analysis and that an NRED proceeding is quasi-judicial for purposes
of the privilege. As appellant's statements meet the requirements for anti-
SLAPP protection and the absolute litigation privilege applies such that

respondent cannot prevail on his claims, we reverse.

 

 
on

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Daphne Williams, an African-American woman,
agreed to purchase a condominium that she was renting from the property
owner. Respondent, Charles “Randy” Lazer, a licensed real estate
professional, represented the seller in the sale, and Williams acted without
fan agent. Williams and Lazer had communication problems during the
transaction, and after delays in closing, Williams sent Lazer a text stating
that she was contemplating filing a complaint with the NRED regarding
what she perceived as Lazer’s racist, sexist, and unprofessional behavior.
Lazer responded to the text by contacting NRED, the seller, Williams's
mortgage lender Bryan Jolly, an attorney, and another real estate
professional to explain his perception of what occurred. Further, after the
sale closed, Lazer sent a demand letter to Williams seeking several
thousand dollars and an apology in exchange for not filing a tort action
against her based on the text message she sent only to him.

Williams refused the demand and subsequently filed an NRED
complaint, alleging that Lazer (1) “displayed unethical, unprofessional,
racist and sexist behavior” during the transaction; (2) inappropriately
shared confidential information with her about his personal relationship
with the seller; (3) contacted the appraiser before the appraisal, which she
believed was unethical based on a conversation she had with an NRED
employee; (4) falsely claimed that Williams would not allow the seller's

{During his email exchange with Jolly, who is African-American,
Lazer stated that he “playls) and write[s} jazz, which is truly at the very
heart of black/African culture, and [Lazer] hals] an incredible love and
respect for that.” Lazer also stated that no person had ever accused him of
being racist in any prior real estate deal.

 

 
‘movers to enter the condominium to remove the seller's property and that
Williams caused delays in closing; (5) failed to send her a fully executed copy
of the signed purchase agreement; and (6) had the seller call Williams to
encourage her to apologize to Lazer for her text message?

Lazer then filed the underlying complaint, alleging defamation,
negligence, business disparagement, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Williams filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss, arguing
that the statements contained in her NRED complaint were protected “good
faith communication(s] in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to
free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern.” She

 

further argued that her statements were truthful, were made without
knowledge of their falsehood, or were opinions, and they were otherwise
privileged because they were made in the context of judicial proceedings,
such that Lazer could not show a probability of prevailing on his claims.

 

Specifically, as to common law privilege, she argued that NRED is a quasi-
judicial body and thus the absolute litigation privilege protects statements
made in her NRED complaint. Regardless, she argued, Lazer failed to show
minimum merit to his claims.

In opposing the motion, Lazer argued that the anti-SLAPP
statutes did not protect Williams's statements because she knew they were
false when she made them and he made a prima facie showing of a
probability of prevailing on his claims. As to the absolute litigation
privilege, he argued that (1) Nevada law does not support that the privilege
protects an NRED complaint and public policy justifying applying the

2According to Williams, during that phone call, the seller stated that
she did not “know why (Lazer] is trying to sabotage this deal.”

 

 
om

privilege to complaints against police officers did not apply to realtors,
(2) NRED is not a judicial body,
contemplated engaging in a quasi-judicial proceeding against Lazer.

‘The district court denied Williams's anti-SLAPP special motion
to dismiss, concluding that she failed to show that she made her statements
in good faith, i.e., that they were truthful or made without knowledge of
their falsity, but that even if she did, Lazer showed a probability of

ind (3) it was unclear if NRED even

 

prevailing on his claims. The court of appeals affirmed. Williams v. Lazer,
Docket No. 80350-COA (Order of Affirmance, Nov. 25, 2020). Williams filed
a petition for review, which we granted.
DISCUSSION

We review de novo a decision to grant or deny an anti-SLAPP
special motion to dismiss. Rosen v. Tarkanian, 135 Nev. 436, 438, 453 P.3d
1220, 1222 (2019). A court must grant an anti-SLAPP special motion to
dismiss where (1) the defendant shows, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the claim is based on a “good faith communication in furtherance
of... the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public
concern” and (2) the plaintiff fails to show, with prima facie evidence, a
probability of prevailing on the claim. NRS 41.660(3).

Williams satisfied her burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP
analysis,

Williams argues that her statement that Lazer was racist,
sexist, unprofessional, and unethical is a non-actionable opinion and that
either her remaining factual statements are true or Lazer failed to provide
evidence that Williams knew the statements were false when she made
them, We agree.

‘To satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP special motion to

dismiss analysis, the defendant must show that (1) “the comments at issue

 

 

 
fall into one of the four categories of protected communications enumerated
in NRS 41.637” and (2) the communication is made in good faith in that it
is “truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood.” Stark v. Lackey,
136 Nev. 38, 40, 458 P.3d 342, 345 (2020) (quoting NRS 41.637). The parties
do not dispute that Williams's statements fall within a protected category,
i.e., that they were made in furtherance of the right to petition or right to
free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. Thus, we
address only whether Williams made the statements in good faith in order
to satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

Although the district court’s order did not address Williams's
argument that her general allegations of racism, sexism, and
unprofessional and unethical conduct in her NRED complaint were non-
actionable opinions, the record supports that they were. In support of her
anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss, Williams provided a sworn
declaration in which she described various problems she encountered in
purchasing the condominium and working with Lazer. She stated that
Lazer was consistently rude and unprofessional and she had “no doubt in
fher] mind” that had she not been an African-American woman, Lazer
would have treated her with greater respect and professionalism. She
further stated her belief that every statement in her NRED complaint was
either true or her reasoned opinion based on her experience with Lazer.
Lazer concedes that Williams's allegations of racism and sexism are
opinions, and although he challenges her generalized statements that he
acted unethically and unprofessionally, those statements were likewise
opinion-based. See Stark, 136 Nev. at 43, 458 P.3d at 347 (holding that a
defendant's affidavit affirming her statements were true or statements of

 

 

 
opinion, in the absence of contradictory evidence in the record, is sufficient
to show good faith).

‘As we have previously observed, opinion statements are
incapable of being false, as “there is no such thing as a false idea.” Abrams
v. Sanson, 136 Nev. 83, 89, 458 P.3d 1062, 1068 (2020) (quoting Pegasus v.
Reno Newspapers, Inc., 118 Nev. 706, 714, 57 P.3d 82, 87 (2002)) (observing
that statements of opinion are statements made without knowledge of their
falsehood for anti-SLAPP purposes). In Abrams, we affirmed a district
court order granting the defendant's anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss,
concluding that the challenged statements calling the attorney plaintiff
‘unethical and criticizing her courtroom behavior and methods were
expressions of the defendant's personal views and thus opinions. Id. at 90,
458 P.3d at 1068. We perceive no difference in Williams's generalized
statements here, especially in light of her sworn declaration affirming the
statements as her own opinions based on her experience with Lazer. Id. at
90, 458 P.3d at 1069 (concluding that the defendant's declaration and other
evidence supported that the defendant was stating his beliefs and opinions,
which by definition cannot be knowingly false); see also Stevens v. Tillman,
855 F.2d 394, 402-03 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that neither general
statements charging a person with being racist, unfair, or unjust, nor
references to general discriminatory treatment, without more, constitute
provably false assertions of fact); Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez, 119 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 127, 140 (Ct. App. 2010) (“We agree that general statements
charging a person with being racist, unfair, or unjust .. . constitute mere
name calling and do not contain a provably false assertion of fact.”). As
Williams's opinion-based statements cannot be knowingly false, Abrams,

 

 

 
136 Nev. at 89, 458 P.3d at 1068, we conclude that she satisfied her burden
4s to these statements under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP framework.

‘Turning to the remaining statements, Williams's declaration
explained that she believed every statement she made was true as well as
the basis for that belief, which, under these circumstances, is sufficient to
show that her statements were truthful or made without knowledge of their
falsehood. Stark, 136 Nev. at 43-44, 458 P.3d at 347. While Lazer provided
several declarations that allege some of Williams's statements are factually
wrong, such declarations do not constitute contrary evidence to refute
Williams's affidavit because they do not allege, much less show, that
Williams knew any of the statements were false when she made them. Id.
(explaining that a defendant met her preponderance burden by providing
an affidavit affirming her communications as truthful or made without
knowledge of their falsehood when the record contained no evidence to the
contrary); Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev. 35, 38, 389 P.3d 262, 267 (2017)
(observing that a statement is made without knowledge of its falsehood if
“[tHhe declarant [is] unaware that the communication is false at the time it
‘was made”).

For example, Williams stated that she believed Lazer’s pre-
appraisal contact with the appraiser was unethical based on a conversation
she had with an NRED employee who told her that a seller's agent is not
supposed to make such contact. Although Lazer provided a declaration
stating that such contact is permissible, that does not mean that Williams
did not have a subjective belief that it was impermissible at the time she
filed her NRED complaint. Moreover, the parties’ declarations support that
the gist of some of Williams's remaining statements, including that Lazer
did not provide her with a copy of the fully executed purchase agreement

 

 
and that he falsely claimed that she refused to allow the seller to remove
property from the condo, were true, and thus made in good faith. Rosen,
135 Nev. at 441, 453 P.3d at 1224 (holding that in determining the
truthfulness of a statement, courts do not parse individual words but
instead consider “whether a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates
that the gist of the story, or the portion of the story that carries the sting of
the [statement], is true” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Accordingly, we conclude that Williams met her burden of
showing that she made the remaining statements in good faith and thus
satisfied her burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP framework.
Lazer did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claims

‘Under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, Lazer had
the burden of showing that his claims had at least minimal merit in order
to proceed with the litigation, Abrams, 136 Nev. at 91, 458 P.3d at 1069.

The absolute litigation privilege applies at the second prong of the anti-
‘SLAPP analysis

Asa threshold matter, Williams argues that Lazer cannot meet
his burden under the second prong because the absolute litigation privilege
precludes any tort liability for the statements in her NRED complaint, such
that Lazer’s claims necessarily lack merit: Lazer contends that the
privilege does not apply in the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis
because the minimal merit standard limits the court's analysis to only the
evidence and argument the plaintiff presents to make a prima facie showing
of probable success on his claim.

We previously acknowledged that the absolute litigation

privilege may be relevant to the anti-SLAPP analysis in Shapiro v. Welt. In

  

‘The record does not support Williams's waiver argument; therefore,
we do not address it.

 

 
Shapiro, although we reversed the district court's order granting an anti-
SLAPP special motion to dismiss based on its conclusion that plaintiffs
could not show their claim had minimal merit because the absolute
litigation privilege protected defendants’ statements, we did so because the
district court did not conduct the case-specific, fact-intensive analysis
required to determine whether the privilege applied to the statements at
issue. 133 Nev. at 36-37, 389 P.3d at 265-66. In remanding for the district
court to make that determination, we implicitly acknowledged that whether
the statements are subject to the privilege was relevant to the second-prong
minimal merit analysis. See id. To the extent that Shapiro did not
expressly and thoroughly address the issue, we now explicitly hold that the

 

absolute litigation privilege applies at the second prong of the anti-SLAPP
analysis because a plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on his,
claim if a privilege applies to preclude the defendant's liability.* Such a
holding is consistent with California authority, which is instructive in
deciding anti-SLAPP cases. Id. at 39, 389 P.3d at 268 (recognizing that this
court “look{s} to California law for guidance” when analyzing Nevada's anti-
SLAPP statute); see Feldman v, 1100 Park Lane Assocs., 74 Cal. Rptr. 34 1,
15 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding that “(t]he litigation privilege is relevant to the
second step in the anti-SLAPP analysis” (internal quotation marks
omitted).

“This holding is consistent with our prior caselaw. Cf. Stark, 136 Nev.
at 44 n.4, 458 P.3d at 347 n.4 (instructing the district court to consider
whether the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2012), applied
during the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis because the CDA
precludes liability where applicable and a plaintiff cannot show a
probability of prevailing on his claims if a statute precludes the defendant's
liability for his statements).

10

 

 

 

 
on 8

Statements made in a complaint filed with NRED are subject to the
absolute litigation privilege

Williams argues that the absolute litigation privilege protects
her from liability for her NRED complaint because the statements
contained therein were made in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Whether the absolute
reviewed de novo. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Virtual Educ. Software, Inc., 125
Nev. 374, 382, 213 P.3d 496, 502 (2009). We have expressly concluded that

igation privilege applies is a question of law

 

the absolute litigation privilege extends “to quasi-judicial proceedings
before executive officers, boards, and commissions.” Circus Circus Hotels,
Ine. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 61, 657 P.24 101, 104 (1983). A proceeding
is quasi-judicial for purposes of the absolute litigation privilege if it
“(1) providels] the opportunity to present and rebut evidence and witness
testimony, (2) requirefs) that such evidence and testimony be presented
upon oath or affirmation, and (3) allow{s] opposing parties to cross-examine,
impeach, or otherwise confront a witness.” Spencer v. Klementi, 136 Nev.
325, 382, 466 P.3d 1241, 1247 (2020).

We conclude that an NRED proceeding initiated by a complaint
from a party in a real estate transaction is quasi-judicial because it meets
the criteria outlined in Spencer. Lazer does not dispute that on such a
complaint, NRED is authorized to investigate and impose discipline. See
NRS 645.630 (providing NRED with disciplinary authority); NRS 645.633-
.635 (listing grounds for disciplinary action, including for unprofessional or
improper conduct in a real estate transaction). Moreover, the real estate
‘commission has authority to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, and serve
process, and the real estate licensee against whom the complaint alleges
wrongdoing may present and rebut evidence and witness testimony. See
NRS 645.700-.730 (listing commission's powers and providing that any

uu

 

 

 

 
party to an NRED hearing has the right to call witnesses at the hearing or
upon deposition); NAC 645.810 (listing procedural requirements at a
hearing, which include allowing the real estate licensee to cross-examine
NRED's witnesses and call his or her own witnesses and introduce
evidence). Further, NRS 645.685(1) (providing a licensee the right to file
an answer to the charges) and NRS 645.760(2) (providing that a licensee is
entitled to judicial review of an adverse ruling or decision) support the
conclusion that an NRED proceeding is quasi-judicial because those
statutes “providel ] basic due-process protections similar to those provided
in a court of law.” Spencer, 136 Nev. at 332, 466 P.3d at 1247 (noting that
the Spencer factors are the “minimum” required to show a quasi-judicial
proceeding).

Lazer’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. In
particular, our precedent squarely forecloses his argument that the absolute
litigation privilege cannot apply because there was no formal hearing on
Williams's complaint. See Fink v. Oshins, 118 Nev. 428, 433, 49 P.3d 640,
644 (2002) (“(TIhe privilege applies not only to communications made
during actual judicial proceedings, but also to ‘communications preliminary
toa proposed judicial proceeding.” (quoting Bull v. McCuskey, 96 Nev. 706,
712, 615 P.2d 957, 961 (1980))); see also Lewis v. Benson, 101 Nev. 300, 301,
701 P.2d 751, 752 (1985) (applying the absolute litigation privilege to a
complaint filed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department). Also
unpersuasive is his argument that the privilege does not apply here because
the Legislature has not codified its application in the NRED statutes but
has in the statutes governing Gaming Control Board complaints. The
absolute litigation privilege is rooted in a rich body of common law as a
defense to defamation and other tort claims, and courts have historically

12

 

 
4

applied this common law privilege to statements made in a variety of quasi-
judicial proceedings regardless of additional statutory authority. See, eg,
Lewis, 101 Nev. at 301, 701 P.2d at 752 (applying the privilege to complaints
filed with law enforcement); Knox v. Dick, 99 Nev. 614, 518, 665 P.2d 267,
270 (1983) (applying the privilege to statements made to the Clark County
Personnel Grievance Board); Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188, 191 (Conn. App.
Ct. 2019) (recognizing that Connecticut has long recognized the common
law litigation privilege to afford absolute immunity to those providing
information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings).
Accordingly, we conclude that statements made in the context of an NRED
proceeding, regardless of whether it proceeds to a hearing, are subject to the
absolute litigation privilege when they meet the criteria for the privilege to
apply.
Williams filed her NRED complaint in good faith and in anticipation
of future litigation
In order for the absolute litigation privilege to apply to
statements made in the context of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings,
“(1) a judicial proceeding must be contemplated in good faith and under
serious consideration, and (2) the communication must be related to the
litigation.” Jacobs v. Adelson, 130 Nev. 408, 413, 325 P.3d 1282, 1285 (2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “the privilege applies to
communications made by either an attorney or a nonattorney that are
related to ongoing litigation or future litigation contemplated in good faith.”
Id.
We conclude that Williams filed her NRED complaint in good
faith and in relation to litigation. Because Williams's NRED complaint is a
complaint in a quasi-judicial proceeding, the absolute litigation privilege
applies and protects Williams's NRED complaint. See Lewis, 101 Nev. at

13

 

 
4

301, 701 P.2d at 752 (applying the privilege to complaints filed with law
enforcement). Because all of Lazer's claims derive from the allegedly
defamatory statements contained in Williams's NRED complaint, which is
protected by the absolute litigation privilege, we hold that he cannot show
by prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claims. See
Spencer, 136 Nev. at 326, 466 P.3d at 1243 (noting that the absolute
litigation privilege protects statements made during judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings and “those statements cannot form the basis of a
defamation claim”); see also Asia Invs. Co., LTD v. Borowski, 184 Cal. Rptr.
817, 324 (Ct. App. 1982) (collecting cases applying the absolute litigation
privilege to non-defamation torts like abuse of process,
of emotional distress, slander of title, and intentional interference with

 

intentional infliction

prospective business advantage).
CONCLUSION

The record demonstrates that Williams's statements either
were opinions incapable of being knowingly false, were true, or were not
knowingly false. Lazer's declarations asserting that Williams's statements
were factually false are insufficient to show that she made the statements
in bad faith because his declarations do not show that she knew the
statements were false when she made them. The district court thus erred
in determining that Williams did not meet her burden under the first prong
an NRED
complaint are subject to the absolute litigation privilege, as proceedings

of the anti-SLAPP analysis. Further, statements made

 

before the real estate commission are quasi-judicial, and whether the
privilege applies to particular statements is relevant to the second prong of
the anti-SLAPP analysis because a plaintiff cannot prevail on defamation-
based claims and related torts if the privilege applies. Under the facts here,

14

 

 
the absolute litigation privilege protects Williams's NRED complaint
because the complaint itself initiated a quasi-judicial proceeding,
Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that Lazer demonstrated
a probability of prevailing on his defamation claims. Therefore, we reverse
the district court’s order denying Williams's anti-SLAPP special motion to

dismiss and remand with instructions that the district court grant the

 

motion
oO
Cai
We concur:
= Ihe «BA
Hardesty
Parraguirre "
ed a
Stiglich
4
3
4

16
oe