Opinion ID: 2303223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretation and Application of the Anti-SLAPP Statute to this Case

Text: [¶ 28] There is no dispute that at the first step of the anti-SLAPP statute analysis, the moving parties, MDP and Moffett, demonstrated that Nader's claims against them are based on MDP's and Moffett's exercise of the right of petition. 14 M.R.S. § 556; Schelling, 2008 ME 59, ¶¶ 11-12, 942 A.2d 1226 (As is clear from the language of section 556, the Legislature intended to define in very broad terms those statements that are covered by the statute.). [12] [¶ 29] We focus our analysis, therefore, on the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis: whether Nader met his burden to establish that MDP's and Moffett's exercise of their right of petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and caused actual injury to Nader. 14 M.R.S. § 556. As we have interpreted section 556, if both the moving party (generally a defendant) and the nonmoving party (generally a plaintiff) present conflicting facts, the nonmoving party will always lose because the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party. See Maietta Constr., 2004 ME 53, ¶ 8, 847 A.2d 1169; Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 18, 772 A.2d 842. This has sometimes been referred to as a converse summary-judgment-like standard. See John G. Osborn & Jeffrey A. Thaler, Maine's Anti-SLAPP Law: Special Protection Against Improper Lawsuits Targeting Free Speech and Petitioning, 23 Me. Bar J. 32, 37 (2008). [¶ 30] Applying this converse summary-judgment-like standard makes the special motion to dismiss unlike the other primary procedural mechanisms for early disposition of claims. In both motions to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and motions for summary judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56, the trial court views the pleadings and evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, just as we do in reviewing such matters. See Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821. If the party with the burden on the dispositive motion (the party seeking dismissal or judgment without trial) fails to meet it, the result is a trial. However, when applying the special motion to dismiss, pursuant to our precedent interpreting section 556, if the party with the burden at step two (the nonmoving party, generally the plaintiff) fails to meet its burden, the result is no trial and dismissal of the action. [¶ 31] This standard, which requires the court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party, is a creature of case law. It does not appear in the language of the statute. Section 556 requires, at step two, only that the plaintiff shows that the moving party's exercise of its right of petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and that the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. Section 556 further provides: In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleading and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. [¶ 32] The converse summary-judgment-like standard first appeared in Morse Brothers, Inc. v. Webster , in the context of appellate review. 2001 ME 70, ¶ 18, 772 A.2d 842. The standard was later applied in Maietta Construction, Inc. v. Wainwright, 2004 ME 53, ¶ 8, 847 A.2d 1169 ([T]his evidence is viewed most favorably to the moving party. . . .). [¶ 33] A plain reading of section 556 does not dictate the converse summary-judgment-like standard, and it is this standard, not section 556, that burdens the constitutional rights at issue. To avoid an unconstitutional application of the law, as our rules of statutory interpretation require us to do, section 556 must be construed, consistent with usual motion-to-dismiss practice, to permit courts to infer that the allegations in a plaintiff's complaint and factual statements in any affidavits responding to a special motion to dismiss are true. [13] This standard, consistent with other dispositive motion practice, requires only that the nonmoving party provide prima facie evidence to support its burden of showing that the moving party's petitioning activity was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and that the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. 14 M.R.S. § 556. [¶ 34] We recently described the prima facie evidence standard as the preliminary burden of production of evidence; it requires proof only of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party's favor. Prima facie evidence requires only some evidence on every element of proof necessary to obtain the desired remedy. Thus, prima facie proof is a low standard that does not depend on the reliability or credibility of the evidence, all of which may be considered at some later time in the process. Cookson v. State, 2011 ME 53, ¶ 8, 17 A.3d 1208 (internal citations omitted). [¶ 35] A plaintiff may meet its burden of proof responding to a special motion to dismiss if, through the pleading and supporting and opposing affidavits, 14 M.R.S. § 556, the plaintiff presents some evidence that the defendant's petitioning activity was devoid of factual or legal support and caused actual injury. Even when faced with conflicting evidence from a defendant, a plaintiff able to meet this low standard could avoid dismissal of his or her claim. [¶ 36] Accordingly, today we announce a change in the parties' burdens at the preliminary anti-SLAPP dismissal stage. Upon a special motion to dismiss, a nonmoving party's action or claim should be allowed to proceed unless the nonmoving party, here Nader, by pleading or affidavits, fails to make a prima facie showing that any, rather than all, of the petitioning activities by the moving parties, here MDP and Moffett, necessarily including here MDP's and Moffett's actions in Maine, were devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law. See Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 21, 772 A.2d 842 (leaving open the question of whether a nonmoving party can sustain its burden if some but not all of the moving parties' petitioning actions were devoid of merit). [¶ 37] If Nader fails to make a prima facie case that any of MDP's and Moffett's petitioning activities in any other state or states were devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law, the claims regarding actions in those states where no prima facie case is demonstrated would be dismissed. [14] If Nader fails to make a prima facie case that any of MDP's and Moffett's petitioning activities in Maine were devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law, the action must be dismissed, as there would be no basis for the courts of the State of Maine to assert jurisdiction over actions that occurred only in other states. [¶ 38] We therefore remand this matter for the trial court to reapply the statute at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis, including making a determination as to whether Nader can present sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing that any of MDP's and Moffett's petitioning activities, including actions in Maine, were devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable legal basis and resulted in actual injury to him. Actual injury could include, as alleged in Nader's complaint, quantifiable losses of money or other resources or identifiable special damages. An abuse of process claim would also require a prima facie showing of two elements: (1) the use of process in a manner improper in the regular conduct of the proceeding, and (2) the existence of an ulterior motive. Advanced Constr. Corp. v. Pilecki, 2006 ME 84, ¶ 23, 901 A.2d 189. [¶ 39] Because we vacate the court's judgment granting MDP's and Moffett's special motions to dismiss and remand for further proceedings, we also vacate the court's judgment awarding Moffett attorney fees and costs. The entry is: Judgment granting MDP's and Moffett's special motions to dismiss is vacated. Judgment granting Moffett's motion for attorney fees and costs is vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SILVER, J., with whom JABAR, J., joins, concurring. [¶ 40] I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, and with the Court's decision to reallocate and lower the burdens applicable in anti-SLAPP cases in order to restore balance to the competing constitutional rights implicated by this statute. I write separately because Maine's anti-SLAPP statute raises serious concerns regarding the right to equal protection under the law, to petition the government for redress of grievances, and to open courts. I also write to express my belief that in order to avoid the potentially fatal constitutional implications of the statute as written, the Court must continue to view this statute as a procedural mechanism consistent with other dispositive motions rather than as a substantive burden on a plaintiff's ability to bring a valid cause of action. [¶ 41] We have long interpreted the open courts provision of the Maine Constitution to guarantee a right of access to the courts to all persons alike without discrimination, limited only by the Legislature's reasonable procedural requirements for exercising the right to an adjudication. Godbout v. WLB Holding, Inc., 2010 ME 46, ¶¶ 6-7, 997 A.2d 92 (emphasis added). We have held that statutes of limitation, e.g., id. ¶¶ 7-8, and medical malpractice screening panels, Irish v. Gimbel, 1997 ME 50, ¶ 18, 691 A.2d 664, are the type of reasonable, constitutionally-permissible procedural limitations on a plaintiff's ability to bring a cause of action. Procedural mechanisms are designed to weed out meritless claims or lawsuits and prevent stale claims from being brought. [¶ 42] The special motion to dismiss created by the anti-SLAPP statute is intended to do the same thing: to dispose of baseless lawsuits that are brought not to vindicate the plaintiff's rights but to punish the defendant for exercising her constitutional right to petition the government, and to do so at an early stage before the defendant incurs great expense. See Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 2004 ME 53, ¶ 6, 847 A.2d 1169. California was one of the first states to enact modern anti-SLAPP legislation, and it did so in response to a growing trend of deep-pocketed developers effectively silencing public opposition to development projects with the threat or pursuit of resource-draining but ultimately baseless litigation. See generally Dixon v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App.4th 733, 741, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687 (Cal. Ct.App.1994). [¶ 43] Maine adopted the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA), 24 M.R.S. §§ 2501-2987 (2011), for a similar reason. A national crisis in the availability and cost of medical malpractice insurance was occurring, which had caused an increase in medical malpractice insurance rates in Maine. Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 ME 94, ¶ 15, 902 A.2d 830 (quoting Butler v. Killoran, 1998 ME 147, ¶¶ 9-10, 714 A.2d 129). The Legislature appointed a commission to develop a more equitable system of relief for malpractice claims, and the screening panels were created as part of this system. Id. They are designed as a procedural mechanism that screens out and deters meritless malpractice claims and encourages pretrial settlement. See 24 M.R.S. § 2851; Irish, 1997 ME 50, ¶ 13, 691 A.2d 664. As a deterrent to baseless litigation, the statute also requires admission of panel findings at trial when the panel unanimously determines that a plaintiff or defendant possesses a meritless claim or defense. 24 M.R.S. § 2857; Irish, 1997 ME 50, ¶ 13, 691 A.2d 664. Although medical malpractice plaintiffs have challenged this statute as a violation of the equal protection clause, we have upheld this statute as a procedure that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See Irish, 1997 ME 50, ¶ 19, 691 A.2d 664. [¶ 44] Although the anti-SLAPP statute seeks to serve the same purpose as the MHSA, it differs significantly in two very important ways. First, the Legislature did not identify the existence of any crisis in Maine to justify imposing an additional burden on a certain class of plaintiffs. Our Legislature was silent as to its reasons for adopting Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, in contrast to its clear articulation of the need for the MHSA and its reasons for adopting that statute. Cf. Saunders, 2006 ME 94, ¶ 15, 902 A.2d 830 (noting that the legislative history of the MHSA is well documented and describing the specific need for it in Maine). [¶ 45] The lack of a need for this statute in Maine is evidenced by the fact that it has rarely, if ever, been invoked by a citizen group or individual private citizens who seek to avail themselves of the protections of the statute against a resource-draining lawsuit. Instead, the statute has consistently been used between parties such as business partners, see DeSimone v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 WL 21018852, 2003 Me.Super. LEXIS 56 (Mar. 24, 2003); employers and employees, see Clemetson v. Sweetser, Inc., 2011 Me.Super. LEXIS 217 (Nov. 4, 2011); and divorcing spouses, see, e.g., Pylypenko v. Copp, 2011 WL 1338088, 2011 Me.Super. LEXIS 13 (Feb. 23, 2011). The only time the statute has been invoked in Maine by the type of parties for whom it was intended, the Superior Court dismissed the claims of a group of citizens who challenged statements made by various gas company representatives before governmental entities, which the citizens alleged were known by the company to be false. See Millett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 1999 Me.Super. LEXIS 240, - (Aug. 30, 1999) (noting that [t]he plain language of the statute does not limit its application to certain classes of defendants and that defendants' motive in exercising their right to petition is irrelevant to whether their exercise is protected). Therefore, not only has this statute been used by different parties than those intended, but it has served an entirely different purpose than the one intended. The Goliath who abuses other forms of petitioning to harass David has now adopted the special motion to dismiss as another obstacle to throw in David's path when he legitimately seeks to petition the court for redress. See Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 425.17 (2003) (shielding public interest plaintiffs from the special motion due to disturbing abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute). [¶ 46] The second way the anti-SLAPP statute differs from the MHSA is that the statute's plain language substantively alters the type of harm actionablethat is, plaintiff must show the defendant's conduct resulted in actual injury to the plaintiff. Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 89 (1st Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted). Unlike our interpretation of the MHSA, our interpretation of the actual injury prong has amplified the substantive nature of this requirement. In Schelling v. Lindell, 2008 ME 59, 942 A.2d 1226, for example, the Court required the plaintiff to prove that she had suffered compensable emotional injury in order to survive the anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss. Id. ¶¶ 16-20. Had the plaintiff's cause of action for defamation been based on something other than the defendant's petitioning activity, damages would have been presumed and the plaintiff would not have been required to prove actual injury in order to survive a dispositive motion. The Court was compelled to dismiss the complaint, despite the claim being otherwise valid, brought in good faith, and capable of succeeding, because the plaintiff could not demonstrate actual injury as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. Id. ¶ 27; see also Maietta Constr., 2004 ME 53, ¶¶ 9-10, 847 A.2d 1169 (rejecting plaintiff's assertion that damages per se constitute actual damages). [¶ 47] Clearly, the statute is capable of functioning as more than a procedural barrier to test the validity or likelihood of success of a potentially meritless cause of action. Because of the way the statute has been misused with respect to its intended purpose, treating it as a substantive abrogation of common law claims has become very problematic; it serves to bar legitimate, valid claims that are brought by plaintiffs in good faith, regardless of whether a plaintiff would be able to meet her burden on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. While the Legislature may have the authority to do so, there is no indication that it intended to do so. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 2010 ME 44, ¶ 34, 995 A.2d 651 (stating that an ambiguous statute will only be read in derogation of the common law if the legislative history demonstrates the Legislature's intent to do so). There is no need, then, for the statute to be interpreted in this way. Given that the statute is meant to protect the party who is validly exercising his right to petition, it is inconsistent with the Legislature's intent to interpret this statute in a way that enables it to be used against the very parties it was designed to protect. See Rich v. Dep't of Marine Res., 2010 ME 41, ¶ 7, 994 A.2d 815 (Our primary purpose in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. (quotation marks omitted)). [¶ 48] More importantly, abrogating common law causes of action only for certain plaintiffs plaintiffs who seek to challenge certain activitiespresents a serious constitutional issue. Interpreting the statute to subject certain plaintiffs to an evidentiary burden that is higher than that borne by other similarly-situated plaintiffs invites violations of plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the law pursuant to article 1, section 6-A of the Maine Constitution. A plaintiff with a cause of action for defamation, for example, is deprived of her right to petition the court for redress only when the action that caused her injury was a form of petitioning, even sham petitioning. This amounts to a distinction among and differing treatment of identical plaintiffs with identical harms and causes of action. When one plaintiff is able to pursue her cause of action and the other is not, equal protection of the law is implicated. [¶ 49] Our reasoning in defense of the MHSA does not apply here. We have upheld that statute on the basis that a plaintiff does not have a fundamental right to bring a particular cause of action. See Irish, 1997 ME 50, ¶ 19, 691 A.2d 664; Choroszy v. Tso, 647 A.2d 803, 808 (Me. 1994); Me. Med. Ctr. v. Cote, 577 A.2d 1173, 1177 (Me.1990). Accordingly, enacting a procedure to which only medical malpractice plaintiffs are subjected does not violate equal protection because doing so is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Irish, 1997 ME 50, ¶ 19, 691 A.2d 664. The anti-SLAPP statute, in contrast, does implicate fundamental rights, Majority Opinion ¶¶ 21, 24 (noting that the right to petition and the right of access to the courts are fundamental rights), and curtailing those rights is not justified by the compelling need that supported enactment of the MHSA. The anti-SLAPP statute also distinguishes between plaintiffs with identical causes of action, which was not a concern pursuant to the MHSA. Hence, the anti-SLAPP statute is more problematic and less defensible than the MHSA in terms of equal protection. [¶ 50] In addition, interpreting the statute to create an additional, substantive burden that authorizes the dismissal of legitimate causes of action brought in good faith may deprive plaintiffs of their fundamental rights of access to the courts and to petition the government for redress guaranteed by the United States Constitution. See Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 691 N.E.2d 935, 943 (1998) (By protecting one party's exercise of its right to petition, unless it can be shown to be sham petitioning, the statute impinges on the adverse party's exercise of its right to petition, even when it is not engaged in sham petitioning.). The imposition of a substantive, rather than a procedural, burden also appears to violate the open courts provision of the Maine Constitution. See Me. Const. art. I, § 19; cf. Godbout, 2010 ME 46, ¶¶ 6-7, 997 A.2d 92. [¶ 51] The Court is forced to walk a precarious line when the Legislature attempts to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of some parties by limiting the same rights of other parties. I share the view of the Massachusetts Appeals Court that literal application of the statutory test and procedure . . . create[s] grave constitutional problems where, as here, the plaintiff's action asserts a legitimate, cognizable claim. Duracraft, 691 N.E.2d at 943 n. 19 (quotation marks omitted). However well-intentioned, the approach of the statute is confounding and ill-suited to its purpose. [15] The analytic acrobatics necessary here to reconcile the Constitution with the language of the statute and with our previous interpretations of it indicates that, as written, this statute presents serious constitutional questions. [¶ 52] I commend the Court's painstaking effort to strike the appropriate balance in this case and I believe that it has achieved the right result. I find it necessary to emphasize, however, that the only way to avoid the constitutional implications of this statute is to continue to treat the special motion to dismiss as a procedural, dispositive motion, as the Court has done in this case.