Opinion ID: 2629508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is neutral and procedural

Text: The DCSD argues that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is a neutral and procedural statute that does not obstruct federal substantive law. We agree. As courts of general jurisdiction, Nevada district courts have the authority to decide federal claims. Id. at 367, 110 S.Ct. 2430. This authority arises from the federal Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2., which charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce [federal] law according to their regular modes of procedure. Howlett, 496 U.S. at 367, 110 S.Ct. 2430. In Howlett, the United States Supreme Court recognized three corollaries that arise from this concurrent jurisdiction, and the corollary relevant to this case is the following: When a state court refuses jurisdiction because of a neutral state rule regarding the administration of the courts, [the Supreme Court] must act with utmost caution before deciding that it is obligated to entertain the claim. Id. at 369, 372, 110 S.Ct. 2430 (emphasis added). Although the Supremacy Clause requires state courts to treat federal substantive law as the law of the land, the clause does not require state courts to apply federal procedural rules. See Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 919, 117 S.Ct. 1800, 138 L.Ed.2d 108 (1997) (discussing state court authority to refuse jurisdiction over a federal claim based on a neutral procedural state court rule). `[F]ederal law takes the state courts as it finds them.' Id. (quoting Howlett, 496 U.S. at 372, 110 S.Ct. 2430) (other internal quotations omitted). Therefore, Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute may apply to John's federal claims if it is a neutral and procedural statute. When determining whether Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute falls within this category, we consider California caselaw because California's anti-SLAPP statute is similar in purpose and language to Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. See NRS 41.660; Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16 (West 2004 & Supp. 2009). In Bradbury v. Superior Court (Spencer), the appellant raised an argument in a California Court of Appeal that was similar to John's assertion that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal substantive claims. 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 207, 213 (1996). The Bradbury appellant argued that California's anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal civil rights claims. Id. The court rejected this argument, holding that [w]here the action is founded on a federal statute and brought in state court, state procedure controls unless the federal statute provides otherwise. Id. Thus, the appellate court applied California's anti-SLAPP statute to the federal civil rights claim because it viewed the statute's provisions as procedural in nature. Id.; see generally Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 (2007) (applying California's anti-SLAPP statute to a federal civil rights action). Moreover, California's anti-SLAPP statute allows a defendant to a SLAPP lawsuit to file a special motion to strike the lawsuit within 60 days of service of the complaint or in the court's discretion. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16(b)(1), (f) (West 2004 & Supp. 2009). Once the defendant proves that the anti-SLAPP statute applies, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to show that there is a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim. Id. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16(b)(2). The district court's ruling on the motion is an adjudication on the merits. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16(i). Similarly, Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute allows the defendant to file a special motion to dismiss within 60 days of service of the complaint. NRS 41.660(1)-(2). The statute requires the district court to treat the special motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, and its granting the motion is an adjudication upon the merits. NRS 41.660(3)-(4). Thus, once the defendant proves that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute applies to the case, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact. A comparison of the two statutes illustrates that both statutes create a procedural requirement that the plaintiff must overcome if his claim is to proceed to discovery and trial. Essentially, both statutes treat the procedure as a form of summary judgment wherein both parties are allowed to present their evidence. NRS 41.660(3); Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 425.16(b)(1)-(3) (West 2004 & Supp. 2009). The burden of production is initially on the defendant who must demonstrate the applicability of the statute. See Globetrotter Software v. Elan Computer Group, 63 F.Supp.2d 1127, 1129 (N.D.Cal. 1999). Once he meets his initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff who must show that his claim has merit. See id. And at all times, the burden of persuasion is on the defendant. See NRS 41.660; Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1)-(3). In providing an additional pretrial mechanism for filtering frivolous claims from those claims having arguable merit, these statutes amount to a unique summary judgment motion, a motion that, if granted, is appealable. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 428, 996 P.2d 416, 418 (2000) (concluding the district court order granting summary judgment was an appealable final judgment). Neither statute creates a substantive cause of action or defense. Instead, like rules of civil procedure, the statutes create a procedural mechanism to prevent wasteful and abusive litigation by requiring the plaintiff to make an initial showing of merit. Thus, Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is procedural in nature. Cf. U.S. Ex Rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles, 190 F.3d 963, 973 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying California's anti-SLAPP statute to pendent state law counterclaims and, while recognizing the state interest in deterring frivolous, retaliatory litigation as substantive to the extent of meriting application in federal court, characterizing the anti-SLAPP statute as a state procedural statute for purposes of its analysis). In addition, the statute is neutral in application. The statute applies to both state and federal substantive claims raised by either a plaintiffs complaint or a defendant's counterclaim. Further, the statute only applies in those cases involving [g]ood faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition the government. NRS 41.637. Thus, the statute is neutral and limited in its application. See 17A James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 124.61 (3d ed. 2009) (stating that [s]tates may apply their own neutral procedural rules to federal claims, unless federal law preempts those rules because application of the state rules would defeat federal substantive rights). Consequently, we agree with the reasoning set forth in Bradbury and conclude that, based on the similarities between Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute and California's comparable statute, Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is a neutral and procedural statute.