Opinion ID: 4560792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 3d 1143 (Pa. 2017); Dep’t of Human Servs. v.

Text: Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, Inc., 154 A.3d 431 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017) (en banc). 7 App. at 1632. 8 Id. at 94-99. 9 Id. at 109-113. 10 Id. at 1546. 4 entity clients.” Levin responded by threatening to sue Campbell for defamation. 11 Campbell soon poured gasoline on this burgeoning feud by submitting a second wave of RTKL requests in May. Approximately 600 school boards across Pennsylvania received an identical 17-page request asking their respective districts to provide 27 different types of documentation regarding their relationship with PSBA. 12 More than 240 of the school districts turned to PSBA for assistance in assembling that information. This overwhelming stream of requests led PSBA to adopt a policy of providing what it viewed as the minimum legally required response. 13 Levin also sent Campbell a demand that he take down the picture of Executive Director Mains. Campbell complied, but replaced it with an illustration of PSBA alongside a message similar to the original text. 14 Campbell also established a new website with his personal funds, www.psbahorror.com. He filled it with his anti-PSBA messaging through writing and videos he posted online. 15 Nathan Mains eventually told PSBA’s legal team that he wanted to sue Campbell for damaging PSBA’s reputation. 16 In June 2017, the PSBA Board voted unanimously to sue Campbell and the resulting state tort action was filed the following month alleging defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and abuse of process. 17 PSBA’s then-president testified that the State Suit was filed to “stop” PFUR from “harassing districts with . . . unreasonable request[s] [and] to stop defaming members of the organization.” 18 Mains announced the suit in an email to all PSBA members. 19 Later that year, Campbell and PFUR 11 Id. at 1399-1401. 12 Id. at 124-26. 13 Id. at 1574, 1558. 14 Id. at 1403. 15 Id. at 1418, 1684. 16 Id. at 1684. 17 Id. at 780-831. 18 Id. at 1825. 19 Id. at 144. 5 removed all of the challenged content from their websites and stopped sending RTKL requests. 20 In February 2018, as the State Suit proceeded, Campbell filed this action against PSBA and ten members of its board. His complaint alleges that PSBA’s State Suit was motivated by an improper desire to retaliate against him for proper RTKL requests in violation of his First Amendment rights. Campbell seeks injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. 21 PSBA moved for summary judgment. Its motion advanced multiple arguments, but we must consider only the claim that Noerr-Pennington doctrine shields PSBA from liability for filing the State Suit. The District Court agreed with this position and held that both Campbell’s RTKL requests and PSBA’s subsequent state tort claims were protected under Noerr-Pennington. 22 The Court found that PSBA’s State Suit claims were objectively baseless. As we discuss later, this satisfied the first requirement for lifting Noerr-Pennington immunity. However, the District Court held that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the suit was “subjectively baseless.” 23 Accordingly, the Court granted PSBA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Campbell’s civil rights claim without reaching the remaining contentions. This appeal followed. 24