Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Nos. 19

- CV

- 195 & 19

- CV

- 646
C LOSE I T ! T ITLE S ERVICES , I NC ., D/B.A. F E DERAL T ITLE & E SCROW C O

. , et al

. , A PPELLANTS ,

v.
M ICHAEL S. N ADEL , et al

. , A PPELLEES

. Appeal s from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ( CAB

- 5391

- 18) (Hon. William M. Jackson , Trial Judge) (Argued December 10 , 2020 Decided April 8, 2021) Stacey G. Evans , with whom Jeffrey N. Williams and Andrew J. Lawrence , were on the brief for appellant s
. Bryan A. Carey , attorney for Sean Smith and Erin Wrona , were on the brief, for appellees

. Roger E. Warin with whom Michael E. Stoll , attorn e ys for McDermott Will & Emery LLP and Michael S. Nadel , were on the brief, for appellees

. Before B LACKBURNE

- R IGSBY , Chief Judge , T HOMPSON , Associate Judge , and F ERREN , Senior Judge

. F ERREN , Senior Judge : A local radio station published statements by attorney Michael Nadel, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP ( “ McDermott2

Will ” ) , about app ellant , Federal Title & Escrow Co. ( “ Federal Title ” ), 1 in
connection with his firm’s representation of Sean Smith and Erin Wrona in a lawsuit against Federal Title for the loss of $1.57 million held in escrow

. Considering these statements to be defamatory and otherwise tortious, the appellants ( Federal Title a nd its owner , Todd E wing ) sued the appellee s (N adel,
McDermott Will , S mith , and W rona ) for damages , as well as a published retraction
of Nadel’s statements and their removal from all web sites. A ppell ees filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6), a s
well as a special motion to dismiss under the District of Columbia Anti

- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (“ Anti

- SLAPP Act”). 2

T he trial co urt granted appellees’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on its
determination that appellants failed to plead any viable claim. The court also granted appellees’ a nti

- SLAPP motion to dismiss, concluding that they had made the required prima facie showing t hat Nadel’s statements comprised “ an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest[,]” 3 unrebutted by

________________ 1 Federal Title & Escro w Co. is the name under which Close It! Title Services, Inc. , does business.

2 D.C. Code §§ 16

- 5501

- 5505

.

3 D.C. Code § 16

- 5502(b).3 appellan t s, and thus that appellants’ claims could not succeed on the merits. The
trial court then awarded appellees their att orneys’ fees under the Anti

- SLAPP Act
fee

- shifting provision. 4

We conclude that the trial court correctly dismissed appellants’ claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy but erred in dismissing their claim
for tortious interference with business relations

. Further more , the trial court erred
in granting appellees’ a nti

- SLAPP motion to dismiss and awarding them attorneys’
fees

. Accordingly, we affirm in part , reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I
. Factual Background an d Procedural History

In May 2017, appellees Smith and Wrona hired Federal Title to assist them with closing on the purchase of a home in the Cleveland Park neighborhood, and they wired $200,000 .00 to Federal Title as an earnest

- money deposit. A few days
later , they received an email from the email address of Melina Schifflett, the Federal Title employee w ith whom they had been working , requesting that they wire the remaining $1.57 million of the home’s purchase price. Smith and Wrona

________________ 4 See D.C. Code § 16

- 5504.4 complied, despite be ing wary that the receiving bank account was different from
the one used for the earlier wire and was associated with a n unfamiliar entity designated JMZ Equities, LLC ( “ JMZ ” ). At the scheduled closing in June 2017, Ewing informed Smith and Wrona that Fed eral Title never received the $1.57
million wire

. The closing was postponed, and Ewing promptly notified the FBI

. Several days later, appellant Ewing told Smith that Fed eral Title’s computer system had been hacked an d Schifflett’s email address had been commandeered to intercept the funds from the second wire.

In August 2017, Smith and Wrona filed a federal RICO suit against appellants Federal Title and Ewing, as well as against Schifflett, JMZ, and Jeff Zorbo (JMZ’s owner). Shortly after the suit was filed, Nadel was interviewed by a reporter from the local public radio station , WAMU, resulting in publication of the following statements carried both on the air and on WAMU’s web site:

“ Federal Title either caused our money to be stolen or stole it, and we need to get our money back,” said Michael Nadel, the couple’s attorney. “ We don’t have any evidence that it happened because of hackers oth er than Federal Title’s say

- so.” Nadel also says Federal Title, which has offices in Friendship Heights and Log an Circle, failed to effectively communicate with Smith and Wrona ahead of the closing

— a situation he attributes to the company being involved in the scheme. “ Federal Title never calle d Sean Smith and said, ‘Bring your5 money to closing,’ and didn’t even b ring it up until the middle of closing. So if they weren’t responsible for helping steal the money, it certainly seems like they knew well in advance of that closing that the money was gone. Their conduct shows that,” he said.

McDermott Will published o n its web site a link to the WAMU story and repeated

on the web site Nadel’s statements that Federal Title had “either caused our money to be stolen or stole it,” and that “if they weren’t responsible for helping steal the money, it certainly seems like they knew well in advance of that closing that the money was gone.” Several days later, Federal Title notified Nadel and McDermott
Will by letter that the statements were defamatory, causing it “immediate and irreparable harm,” and should be retracted

. Nadel and McDermott Will acknowledged receipt of the letter but refused a retract ion

.

In June 2018, the district court dismissed Smith and Wrona’s federal suit because they had failed to plead facts sufficient for a RICO claim

. 5 The court
declined to exe rci se supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining District

- law
claims. Smith and Wrona promptly filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging,
inter alia , a conspiracy to commit theft or, alternatively, negligence by Federal
Title associated with JMZ’s alleg ed hack of its computer system. The case was

________________ 5 Smith v. Fed. Title & Escrow Co. , No. 17

- CV

- 1580 , 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104062, at *15

- 10 (D.D .C. June 21, 2018)

.6 referred to mediation, and in April 2019 a joint stipulation was filed that dismissed with prejudice all of Smith ’s and Wrona’s claims against appellants and Schifflett.

Meanwhile, in July 2018, Federal Titl e and Ewing had filed a complaint in Superior Court against appellees alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with business relations, all based on Nadel’s
statements to WAMU. Appellees moved to dismiss the complain t for failure to
state a claim under both Rul e 12(b)(6) and the Anti

- SLAPP Act

.

In October 2018, the trial court granted appellees’ motions to dismiss on both grounds. As to Rule 12(b)(6), the court ruled that: (1) Nadel’s statements
were not reasonab ly susceptible of a defamatory meaning in the context of
WAMU’s article and , in any event , were protected by the fair

- report and judicial

proceedings privileges; (2) the false light claim necessarily failed because the
defamation claim was deficient ; and ( 3) as to alleged tortious interference, the complaint failed to specify the business or contractual relationships allegedly damaged by Nadel’s statements. Moreover, a s to appellees’ a nti

- SLAPP motion to
dismiss , the trial court concluded that the statute applied because the case “arises from privileged statements made . . . to a WAMU reporter after the filing of
the

. . . federal lawsuit[] , ” and it concern s an “ issue of public interest, ” namely,7 “the importance of cybercrime. ” The trial court further foun d that the Rule 12(b)(6) shortcomings prevented appellants from demonstrating that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, and thus that dismissal was required
under the Anti

- SLAPP Act

. Appellees then filed motions for attorneys’ fees u nder
that statute.

In November 2018, the trial court granted appellants’ timely motion to
reconsider the dismissal because the court had failed to acknowledge appellants’ filed oppositions and also had failed to conduct the required hearing on an a nti

S LAPP motion to dismiss. On February 5, 2019, after the required hearing the previous month, the trial court affirmed its October 2018 dismissal order. Appellants timely appealed the February 5 order in Case No. 19

- CV

- 195.

On February 25, 2019, the trial court granted Smith ’s and Wrona’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the Anti

- SLAPP Act and awarded them $24,340 .00

. In June 2019, Smith and Wrona filed a motion for an amended order, nunc pro tunc ,
to require payment of the fee award to appellants jointly and severally, because
omission of that requirement had prevented them from registering the order as a judgment in Maryland. Appellants filed an opposition , arguing that the February
25 order was not a final , appealable order because Nadel ’s and McDermot t’s8 attorneys’ fee motion was unresolved and , in any event , because Smith ’s and Wrona’s requested addition was a substantive change inappropriate for a nunc pro

tunc order. Smith and Wrona filed a reply arguing that the February 25 order was appealable be cause it had been issued after the February 5 dismissal order. On July 2, 2019, the trial court issued an amended fees order granting Smith ’s and
Wrona ’s requested addition

. Also o n July 2, 2019, the trial court granted , in part , Nadel ’s and McDermott Wi ll’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the Anti

- SLAPP
Act , halving their requested amount to $85,402.85. Appellants timely appealed the July 2 orders in Case No. 19

- CV

- 646. On December 19, 2019, t his court,
consolidated the appeals.

II
. Standard of Rev iew

A complaint is subject to dismissal under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted if it does not satisfy the requirement, set forth in Super. Ct. Civ. R. 8(a)(2), that it contain a “short and plain

state ment of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 6 T he plaintiff

________________ 6 Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia , 28 A.3d 531, 544 (D.C. 2011).9 is not required, however, to include “detailed factual allegations.” 7 All factual allegations in a complaint challenged under Rule 12(b)(6) must be presumed true
and libera lly construed in the plaintiff’s favor. 8 That said , “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” 9 and the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the
court to d raw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liabl e for the misconduct alleged.” 10 “[A]lthough a plaintiff may survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even if “recovery is very remote and unlikely,” 11 the “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to rel ief above the speculative level. ” 12

________________ 7 Id . (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009))

.

8 See Grayson v. AT&T Corp ., 15 A.3d 219, 228

- 29 (D.C. 2011) (en banc).

9 Potomac Dev. Corp ., 28 A.3d at 544 (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678).

10 Id

.

11 Grayson , 15 A.3d at 229.

12 OneWest Bank, FSB v. Marshall , 18 A.3d 715, 721 (D.C. 2011) (quoting Chamberlain v. American Honda Fin. Corp ., 931 A.2d 1018, 1023 (D.C. 2007)).10

Th is court reviews “an order granting a motion to dismiss de novo .” 13 Similarly, the court examines the prima facie showing requirement for a special ,

a nti

- SLAPP motion to dismiss under D.C. Code § 16

- 5502(b) and the relevant definitional provisions in D.C. Code § 16

- 5501 de novo

. 14

III. Analysis

A. The 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss
1. Defamation
A claim for defamation must allege : (1) that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff ; (2) that the defendant published the statement without privilege to a thir d party; (3) that the defendant’ s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and (4) either that the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespectiv e of special harm or that its publication caused the plaintiff special harm. 15

________________ 13 Ludwig & Robinson, PLLC v. BiotechPharma, LLC , 186 A.3d 105, 109 ( D.C. 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

14 See Saudi Am. Pub. Rels. Affs. Comm. v. Inst. for Gulf Affs

. , 242 A.3d 602 , 607 (D.C. 2020 ) (citing Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann , 150 A.3d 121 3, 1233 (D.C. 2016), as amended (Dec. 13, 2018)).

15 Solers, Inc. v. Doe , 977 A.2d 941, 948 (D.C. 2009) (quoting Oparaugo v. Watts , 884 A.2d 63, 76 (D.C. 2005)).11

The trial court dismissed this claim by appellant Ewing, concluding that the complaint “fail[ed] to allege any statements made by any of the defendants concerning him in an indi vidual capacity.” Also , the court dismissed the
defamation claim by Federal Title, determining that Nadel’s statements, “when read in context, were not reasonably capable of conveying a false and defamatory message.” As to both , w e agree.

When examini ng a defamation claim, we cannot separat e the words from
their context

. 16 As the trial court correctly concluded, when one considers Nadel’s statements in context, it is clear that he is communicating no more than his theory
of his clients’ case

. 17 While a ppellants are correct in observing that statements
which tend to “ injure [ the ] plaintiff in his trade , profession or community standing”

________________ 16 See Clawson v. St. Louis Post

- Dispatch, L.L.C. , 906 A.2d 308, 313

- 14 (D.C. 2006) (“[A] state ment . . . may not be isolated and then pronounced defamatory, or deemed capable of defamatory meaning. Rather, any single statement or statements must be examined within the context of the entire [article].”); see also Howard Univ. v. Best , 484 A.2d 958, 989 (D.C. 1984) (“ The plaintiff has the burden of proving the defamatory nature of the publication, and the publication must be considered as a whole, in the sense in which it would be understood by the readers to whom it is addressed.” ) (internal citatio ns omitted)

.

17 See Guilford Trans. Indus., Inc. v. Wilner , 760 A.2d 580, 597 (D.C. 2000) ( “ [ I]f it is plain that a speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of ob jectively verifiable facts, the statement is not actionable.”) (internal quotations omitted).12

are important consideration s in evaluating a defamation claim , “ [a]n allegedly defamatory re mark must be more than unpl easant or offensive; the language must make [appellants] appear odious, infamous, or rid ic ulous.” 18 It is therefore certainly the case that, if Nadel had simply asserted that Federal Title had stole n
Smith ’s and Wrona’s money, appellants likely would have appear ed “infam ous
. ”
B ut the language use d and its context mad e it clear to the audience “to whom it
was addressed” 19

– the general public

– that appellees were not sure what happened to the money but held Federal Title legally responsible because they eith er “help[ed] steal the money” or “seem[ed] like they knew” what happened to it. 20 In
the context of the radio reporter’s interview and related article, it would have been

________________ 18 Klayman v. Segal , 783 A.2d 607, 613 (D.C. 2001)

.

19 Best , 484 A.2d at 969.

20 During oral argument, appellants’ counsel, for the first time, distinguished be tween the comments Nadel had made on air and his statements as reported in the WAMU article. She observed that, although the article may have given a reader enough context to preclude Nadel’s statements from being defamatory, a listener to the radio broad cast may not have been aware of the context. While it is true that an audience member could tune in at any time of the broadcast and hear a portion of the statements that were arguably defamatory, appellants have not claimed that what was said on the air differed from what was written in the article. The possibility that a portion of the statements could have been heard out of context does not obviate the need for us to read them in their full context. In any event, this court does not normally consider new arguments on appeal. See Thornton v. Norwest Bank of Minnesota , 860 A.2d 838, 842 (D.C. 2004) (internal citations omitted).13

clear to the audience that , considered objectively, Na del was speaking as an
attorney , espousing a theory of liability to serve his clients’ interest s , 21 not making a personal accusation that appellants were “odious, infamous, or ridiculous.”

Because Nadel’s statements were not capable of a defamatory meaning, appellants’ identical defamat ion claim against Mr. Ewing in his indiv idual capacity necessarily failed as well, as the trial court concluded

. Moreover, appellants also
f

ailed to provide support for the contention that, in context, the audience would have understood the accusations ag ainst Federal Title to extend to Mr. Ewing himself as a person “solely in charge of corporate decision making . . . .” 22 Indeed, Mr. Ewing is not mentioned in the WAMU article or in the McDermott Will
website

. As the trial court indicated, Mr. Ewing “ and Federal Title are not one and the same in a way that the statements made in relation to Federal Title can be
dee med as made to Mr. Ewing as well.”

________________ 21 The trial court also concluded that Nadel’s statements were protected by the fair

- report privilege and the judicial proceed ings privilege . Because we agree that Nadel’s statements could not be understood to have a defamatory meaning, we do not reach these issues.

22 Jankovic v. In t’ l Crisis Grp. , 494 F.3d 1080, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2007).14

2. False Light Invasion of Privacy

“ An invasion of privacy

- false light claim requires a showing of: (1) publicity; (2) about a false statement, representation, or imputation; (3) understood to be of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. ” 23 Because Nadel’s

state ments were not capable of a defamatory meaning , appellants’ claim of false light invasion of privacy also fail s
. 24 “[W]here the plaintiff rests both his defamation and false light claims on the same allegations . . . the claims will be analyzed in the same manner.” 25

________________ 23 Klayman , 783 A.2d at 613

- 14. Appellants ’ do not contest the trial court’s conclusion that a corporation (here Close It! Title Services Inc., d/b/a Federal Title & Escrow Co.) does not have a personal right of privacy to sustain such a claim. see also R ESTATEMENT ( S ECOND ) OF T ORTS § 652I, cmt. c (“A corporation, partnership or unincorporated association has no personal right of privacy. It has therefore no cause of action for any of the four forms of invasion of privacy

. . . .”)

.

24 See id. at 619 (“ [S] imilar to our conclusion that the challeng ed statement did not make Mr. Klayman appear to be odious, infamous or ridiculous, and for the same reasons, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that the statement did not place Mr. Klayman in a ‘highly offensive’ false light .”) (internal ci ta tions and quotations omitted).

25 Blodgett v. Univ. Club , 930 A.2d 210, 222

- 23 (D.C. 2007) (internal citation omitted); see also Klayman , 783 A.2d at 619 ( “[A] plaintiff may not avoid the strictures of the burdens of proof associated with defamation by res orting to
a claim of false light invasion.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted).15

3. Tortious Interference w ith Business Relations

“ A prima facie case of tortious interference wit h business relations requires: (1) existence of a valid contractual or other business relationship; (2) [the
defendant ’ s] knowledge of the relation ship; (3) intentional interference with that relationship by [the defendant]; and (4) resulting damages.” 26 The trial court dismissed appellants’ claims, concluding that they failed to “allege the exact business or contractual relationships that were suppo sedly damaged by the
statements.” T he trial court further determined that appellants’ tortious
interference claim was limited to legal conclusions , without supporting factual allegations. To the contrary, we conclude that appellants sufficiently pled thi s
claim , and thus we reverse the dismissal and remand the claim

.

In their complaint, appellants represent that, “ [o]ver t he past twenty years, [they] have established valid contractual and business relationships with lenders, insurers, real estate brokers and homebuyers and sellers

. ” This allegation is
sufficient to satisfy the first element of the tort : the existence of a “ valid business

________________ 26 Whitt v. Am. Prop. Constr., P.C. , 157 A.3d 196, 202 (D.C. 2017) (internal citations and quotations omitted).16 relationship. ” Moreover, i t has long been established that plaintiffs need not identify specific business relationsh ips or otherwise plead with particularity. 27

Likewise, appellants satisfied the second element, adequately pleading that appellees knew of Federal Title’s array of business relationships by explaining that
Federal Title wa s the largest independently owned and operated title company in the Washington, D.C. area and that appellees chose them, in part, because of that
fact

.

Covering the third element of tortious interference , appellants pled that appellees’ intentional interference wit h their business rela tionships was attributable
to Nadel’s statements , including appellees’ awareness of the harm those statements
caused. Specifically, t he complaint alleged that appellees had been informed of the damage: “ On or about August 16, 2017, Plaintiffs . . . notif ied McDermott and Nadel by letter that [Nadel’s] statements were false, constituted defamation per se, and were causing immediat e and likely irreparable harm.” In addition, appellants alleged that, despite acknowle dging receipt of this notice of harm, app ellees chose

________________ 27 See Havil ah Real Prop. Servs ., LLC v. VLK, LLC , 108 A.3d 334, 351 (D.C. 2015) ( “ VLK ’ s argument that Havilah failed to identify specific business relationships can be disposed of by reference to our decision in Carr v. Brown, 395 A.2d 79, 84 (D.C. 1978) ”)

.17 not to retract the statements. These allegations were more than sufficient to satisfy
the third element of the tort. 28

Finally, a ppellants adequately pled damages, indicating not only injury to their reputation s and related emotional distre ss bu t also significant financial damage: “ Realtors and lenders terminated their business relationships with
Plaintiffs. New orders for title services plummeted. Revenues, which had been climbing steadily for years, plunged. The total financial damage to Plaintiffs ultimately will be in the tens of millions of dollars.”

_______ _______ 28 To allege the “intentional interference” element of the tort , a plaintiff need not plead that the defendant acted with malice or otherwise wrongfully. See NCRIC, Inc. v. Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc. , 957 A.2d 890, 900 (D.C. 2008) (“ We have never declared it an element of a prima facie case t hat the defendant's intentional interference be otherwise wrongful .”). Instead, i t is sufficient that a plaintiff’s pleadings reflect that the defendant was certain or substantially certain that interference with a business relationship would occur as a r esult of the defendant ’s actions (emphasis added)

. See Whitt , 157 A.3d at 203. Accordingly, because Federal Title’s pleadings sufficiently alleged appellees’ interference with its business relationships , a properly instructed jury could find the requisit e “ intentional interference ” based on appellees’ being “substantially certain ” that harm to that business would occur as a result of Nadel’s statements. See id

. (explaining that a jury could find that defendants were “ substantially certain ” they were inte rfering with plaintiff’s business when their construction (outside plaintiff’s property) resulted in “obvious obstacles” to reaching her business , and that she had previously complain ed to them to put them on notice).18 For the foregoing reasons, w e reverse dismissal of appellants’ tortious
interference with business relations claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this ruling

.

B. T he District of Columbia’s Anti

- SLAPP Statute

A strategic lawsuit against public participation , or SLAPP , is “an action filed by one side of a political or public policy debate aimed to punish or prevent the

express ion of opposing points of view.” 29 The Di strict’s Anti

- SLAPP Act provides parties allegedly defending against a SLAPP (e.g., appellees here) with procedural
tools to protect them selves from “meritless” litigation

– more specifically, to provide expedited protection against harassment for exercis ing freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. 30 One of the se procedural tools is

________________ 29 Mann , 150 A.3d at 1226 (internal quo tation marks omitted).

30 Id. at 1226

- 27; (explaining that the goal of a SLAPP suit “is not to win the lawsuit but to punish the opponent and intimidate them into silence.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Fridman v. Orbis Bus. Intelligence Ltd. , 22 9 A.3d 494, 502 (D.C. 2020) (explaining that the Anti

- SLAPP Act was created to mitigate the spread of meritless lawsuits designed to “muzzle speech or efforts to petition the government on issues of public interest . . . resulting in a chilling effect on t he exercise of constitutionally protected rights.” ) (internal citations omitted).19

the opportunity to file a special motion to dismiss the complaint , in order to bring
the swiftest possible end to the litigation

. 31

To support an a nti

- SLAPP mot ion to dismiss , the defendant initially must

“ make [] a prima facie showing that the claim at issue”

– here, appellants’ complaint

– “ arises from an act ”

– here , defendant

- appellee Nadel’s statements

–

“ in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of p ublic interest.” 32 Thus , the
issue is whether Nadel’s statements go to or touch on the essential substantive requirement , an issue of public interest. A n “ [ i ] ssue of public interest ,” defined as
“an issue related to health or s afety ,” or “ environmental, e c onomic, or community
well

- being,” as well as to “the District government,” a “ public figure ,” or a “ good, product, or service in the market place.” 33 Expressly excluded from this definition

are “private interests, such as statements directed primarily tow ard protecting the speaker ’ s commercial interests rather than toward commenting on or sharing information about a matter of public significance. ” 34

________________ 31 D.C. Code § 16

- 5502.

32 D.C. Code § 16

- 5502(b).

33 D.C. Code § 16

- 5501(3).

34 Id. ; s ee Saudi Am. Pub. Rels. Affs. Comm

. , 242 A.3d at 611 ( “Section 16

- 5501(3) expansivel y defines an ‘[i]ssue of public interest’ to encompass issues that (continued .

. .)20

Once the issue is definable as a matter of “public,” not “private” interest, 35 the kind of “act” that qualif ies to further “ the right of advocacy on issues of public
interest” means:
(A) any written or oral statement made: (i) in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or (ii) in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest. 36

If the defendant has made the required prima facie showing 37

– which is “not
onerous” 38

– “the burden shifts to the

. . . plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the

________________ (.

. . continued) ‘relate[] to’ a set of wide

- ranging, and somewhat nebulous, categories

. . . . This drafting choice indicates both that issues of public interest should be liberally interpreted and that the statements need not explicitly refer to a qualifying topic. Further, although the definition expressly carves out ‘private interests,’ it does so in a matter that suggests that intermixing public and private interests is not disqualifying. A statement ma y still relate to an issue of public interest so long as it is not ‘directed primarily’ at a private interest.” )

.

35 See text accompanying supra notes 33 & 34.

36 D.C. Code § § 16

- 550 1(1)(A) (i) & (ii)

.

37 See supra note 32.

38 Doe No. 1 v. Burke (“ Burke I ”), 91 A.3d 1031, 1043 (D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)

.21

claim is likely to succeed on the merits. ” 39 If the plaintiff cannot carry t his burden, the defendant’s motion must be granted and the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice. 40

Ruling for the Nadel appellees, the trial court concl uded :

A pplication of the A nti SLAPP statute is clear[,] . .

. based on protected speech under the statute as it arises from privileged statements made by Mr. Nadel to a WAMU reporter after the filing of the underlying federal lawsuit. The issue is include d as one of public interest under the broad reading permitted by the st a tute, which relates to potential concerns regarding cybercrime.

To the contrary, a ppellants Federal Title and Ewing argue that the trial court erred
in ruling they had filed a SLAP P complaint that arose from an “act” (Nadel’s

statements ) allegedly “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public
interest.” 41 They stress that Nadel’s statements “primarily” served not “public
interests ” but , rather, the “private interests” 42 of the appellee lawyers and clients in pursuit of the $1.5 million allegedly lost, if not stolen, by Federal Title and Ewing.

________________ 39 Mann , 150 A.3d at 1227 ( quoting D.C. Code § 16

- 5502(b) )

.

40 D.C. Code § § 16

- 5502(b), (d).

41 D.C. Code § § 16

- 5501(1)(A) ( i) & (ii) , 16

- 5502(b).

42 See supra note 34 and accompanyi ng text.22 Accordingly, conclude appellants , the defendant

- appellees failed to make the required prima facie showing that justified granti ng their a nti

- SLAPP motion to
dismiss.

We begin the analysis with appellees’ contentions in support of the trial court’s ruling

. Their fundamental argument, premised on D.C. Code § 16

- 5501(1)(A)(ii), relies on the appearance of Nadel’s statements in WA MU’s article ( presumably appearing in a “public forum”) 43 which addresses cybercrime : “Hackers Allegedly Steal $1.5 Million from D.C. Couple In Home

- Buying Phishing Scheme.” They assert the trial court correctly determined that they had
made the essential prima facie showing that “ Nadel’s statements dealt with

. . . several issues of public concern, including title services in the District and cybercrime

. ” T o emphasize the point, appellees reference a quotation in the
WAMU article from a Federal Title emp loyee who said that the incident in which Smith and Wrona lost $1.5 7 million “should serve as a reminder to the public about the importance of cybercrime awareness and education

. ” And, in their brief

________________ 43 See text at supra note 3 6 : “(A) any written or oral statement made: . . . (ii) in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” Appell ants do not dispute that the article appeared in a “public for um.”23 on appeal, appellees cite various articles about “email fraud and real estate
transactions.”

This argument does not persuade

. Nadel’s statements did not address cybercrime, email fraud, or real estate transactions; as appellants maintain, h is

statements were related “primarily” to a private dispute 44 abo ut responsibility for
the loss of $1.5 7 million belonging to Nadel’s clients , Smith and Wrona. Nadel’s

statements in the article at issue , first published by WAMU both on the air and on
its website

– and followed by McDermott Will’s republication on its o wn website

– focused not on the overall “hacking” or “cybercrime” theme of the article but rather, and far more narrowly, on publicizing the alleged responsibility of Federal
Title and Ewing for his clients’ missing $1.57 million. WAMU is not named as a
d efendant in this case; there is no allegation that Nadel was even aware that the WAMU reporter was intending to highlight “hacking” ; and the only statements at issue are Nadel’s, not those of WAMU and its reporter, or of the employee who spoke about cyberc rime for Federal T itle. In fact, Nadel deflected discussion from any broader, cybercrime issue to a focus exclusively on Federal Title’s alleged culpability, stating: “ We don’t have any evidence that it happened because of
hackers other than Federal Titl e’s say so.”

________________ 44 D.C. Code § 16

- 5501(3) ; see supra note 34 and accompanying text.24

In sum, we cannot interpret Nadel’s statements as relating to an issue of public interest simply because they appear in an article featuring the issue of cybercrime , which Nadel himself does not address. N either can it be said that
Federal Title and its principal, Todd Ewing, file d their claim as parties on “one side of a po litical or public policy debate ” 45 about “cybercrime” or any other issue of public interest, as required for a SLAPP lawsuit. 46 Indeed, the only “debate” the parties were engaged in was o ver who was responsible for Smith ’s and Wrona’s missing funds and by what means; Nadel expressed no opinion about cybercrime or any other public matter. 47 Nadel’s statements, rather, were directed primarily at protecting his clients’ (and t hus his own) commercial interests, which are not protected under the Anti

- SLAPP Act. 48

________________ 45 Mann , 150 A.3d at 1227 ( quoting D.C. Code § 16

- 5502(b) )

.

46 Id.

47 C f. Sa udi Am. Pub. Rels. Affs. Comm. , 242 A.3d at 612

- 13 ( concluding that, although the speaker’s statements were primarily directed at another individual, the statements were related to the public interest issue of community well

- being, as they were “ made in the context of a firestorm . . . between two competing Mid

- East special interest groups” about “who should par ticipate in a major policy conference about religious tolerance in the Muslim world.”) (internal quo tations and citations omitted).

48 See supra note 34 and accompanying text.25

A ppellees , however, attempt to buttress their “public interest” (cybercrime) argument, based on § 16

- 5501(1)(A)(ii) , by relying on a companion provision, §
16

- 5501 (1)( A )(i)

. 49 They say that this provision alone justifies a finding that
Nadel’s statements , overall , comprised an “ [a] ct in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest ” simply because th os e statements were made
about a situation under re view by a “judicial body,” 50 namely Smith ’s and Wrona’s
RICO case pending at the time in federal district court

.

Subsection (i), however, makes no reference to what an “issue of public
interest” is. As we noted with reference to subsection (ii), t hat de finition is found exclusively in a subsequent , “related paragraph” 51 of the Act

. S ection 16

- 5501 (3)
defin es an “issue of public interest” as an issue limited to “ health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well

- being; the District government; a

________________ 49 See text at supra note 36 : “(A) any written or oral statement made: (i) in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive,
or judicial body (emphasis added).

50 Id.

51 See Thomas v. United States , 171 A.3d 151, 153 (D.C. 2017) ( “I nterpreting a statute . . . is a holistic endeavor, whereby we co nsider a statute in the context of its entire statutory scheme and the language of surrounding and related paragraphs

. ” ) (internal quotations marks omitted).26 public figure; or a good, product, or service in the market place.” 52 To accept appellees’ interpretation of § 16

- 5501(1 ) (A) (i) , therefore, would be to accept that

someone could perform an “ act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of public interest ” simply because the matter was under consideration by a “judicial body , ” without regard to whether it was limited to § 16

- 5501 (3) criteria

.

If

, as appellees contend, the only requirement for an issue of “ public
interest ” were to be its consider ation “ by a legislative, executive, or judi cial body, ” 53 or its appearance in a “ place open to the public or a public forum” 54

– thus leaving wide open how “publ ic interest” is to be defined

– then subsection (3) of
the Act , which comprehensively defines (an d thus limits) an “issue of public interest,” would be “ redundant or superfluous , ” 55 an untenable situation. 56

________________ 52 D.C. Code § 16

- 5501 (3).

53 D.C. Code § 16

- 5501 (1)(A)(i)

.

54 D.C. Code § 16

- 5501 (1)(A)(i i )

.

55 Se e Crawford v. District of Columbia , 891 A.2d 216, 220 (D.C. 2006) (It is a “basic principle of statutory interpretation that a court must give effect to all of the provisions of [a statute], so that no part of it will be either redundant or superfluous.”) (internal quotations omitted).

56 Even if , as to the meaning of the phrase “issue of public interest,” subsections (1) and (3) were in irreconcilable conflict, the more specific language of subsection (3) would lead us to the conclusion we reach here

. Se e George Washington Univ. v. District of Columbia . Bd. of Adjustment , 831 A.2d 921, 943 (continued .

. .)27 Accordingly, we cannot agree that subsections (i) and (ii) of § 16

- 5501(1 ) (A), standing alone , add any substance to the meaning of “public interes t” ; they do not independently justify a conclusion that Nadel’s statements were made “in furtherance of the right ” of public interest advocacy

. 57 Rather, t hose subsections necessarily incorporate the “public interest” criteria specified in § 16

- 5501 (3) , wh ich does not include Nadel’s statements limited to support of a private interest : his clients, Smith and Wron a
.

Notwithstanding the broad scope of “an issue of public interest , ” which should be “liberally interpreted” under the A nti

- SLAPP Act when addres sing each criterion specified in § 16

- 5501 (3) , 58 we must conclude that appellees have failed to make a prima facie showing that Nadel’s statements

– nowhere embraced by any language in that subsection

– were “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on

________________ (.

. . continued) (D.C. 2003) (explaining that, i f statutory language conflicts, the more specific governs the more general one).

57 D.C. Code § 16

- 5501 (3 )

. The predominance of subsecti on (3) in defining “issue of public interest” is consistent with the legislative history of the Anti

SLAPP Act, which makes clear that the statute is intended to prevent litigation designed to “stop citizen[s] from exercising their political rights,” D.C. Council Comm. R ep. B. 18

- 893, at 2 (D.C. Nov. 18, 2010) , not to shield the m from accountability for alleged defamation and other tortious conduct

.

58 Saudi Am. Pub. Rels. Affs. Comm. , 242 A.3d at 611

.28

issue s of public interest.” 59 Accordingly, appellees ’ special anti

- SLAPP motion to
dismiss should have been denied , and the trial court’s decision to award relevant attorneys’ fees and costs 60 must also be reversed

. 61

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we (1) affirm the trial court’s orders denying appellants’ defamation and false light claims , (2) reverse the court’s order denying appellants tortious interference with business relations claim , and (3) reverse the court’s order granting appellees’ special motion to dismiss pursuant to the Anti

SLAPP Act and related attorneys’ fees

. Accordingly, we remand the case for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered

.

________________ 59 D.C. Code § 16

- 5502( b ).

60 See D.C. Code § 16

- 5504.

61 Because we conclude that appellees have not met their burden to establish
an Anti

- SLAPP case, appellants’ claim that they were wrongfully denied targeted discovery under the Act is moot.