Opinion ID: 2303223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anti-SLAPP Statute; Historical Interpretation and Application

Text: [¶ 13] Title 14 M.R.S. § 556, known as Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, states in relevant part: When a moving party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims or cross claims against the moving party are based on the moving party's exercise of the moving party's right of petition under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Maine, the moving party may bring a special motion to dismiss. The court shall advance the special motion so that it may be heard and determined with as little delay as possible. The court shall grant the special motion, unless the party against whom the special motion is made 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. 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.[ [5] ] [¶ 14] The anti-SLAPP statute is designed to allow a defendant to file a special motion to dismiss a lawsuit that a plaintiff brings with the intention of chilling or deterring the free exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition the government by threatening would-be activists with litigation costs. Schelling v. Lindell, 2008 ME 59, ¶ 6, 942 A.2d 1226; see also Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 2004 ME 53, ¶ 6, 847 A.2d 1169 (Section 556 was designed to combat litigation without merit filed to dissuade or punish the exercise of First Amendment rights of defendants.); Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster, 2001 ME 70, ¶ 10, 772 A.2d 842 (Because winning is not a SLAPP plaintiff's primary motivation, defendants' traditional safeguards against meritless actions, (suits for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, requests for sanctions) are inadequate to counter SLAPP [suits].). [¶ 15] Pursuant to the language of section 556 and our case law, which the trial court attempted to follow, the application of the anti-SLAPP statute is a two-step process. At the first step, the court determines whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies. At this step, the moving party (i.e., the defendant) carries the initial burden to show that the suit was based on some activity that would qualify as an exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition the government. Schelling, 2008 ME 59, ¶ 7, 942 A.2d 1226; see also Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶¶ 19-20, 772 A.2d 842. If the moving party fails to meet its burden at this step, the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply, and the special motion is denied. See Schelling, 2008 ME 59, ¶ 7, 942 A.2d 1226; see also Wenger v. Aceto, 451 Mass. 1, 883 N.E.2d 262, 266 (2008). [¶ 16] If the moving party demonstrates that the suit is based on some activity that would qualify as an exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition the government, and therefore that the statute applies, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish, through pleadings and affidavits, that the moving party's exercise of its right of petition (1) was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law, and (2) caused actual injury to the nonmoving party. 14 M.R.S. § 556; Schelling, 2008 ME 59, ¶ 7, 942 A.2d 1226; Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 20, 772 A.2d 842. If the nonmoving party fails to meet its burden at this second step of the analysis, the court must grant the special motion to dismiss. See Maietta Constr., 2004 ME 53, ¶ 8, 847 A.2d 1169. [¶ 17] The analysis a court may use to determine whether the nonmoving party has met its burden to establish that the moving party's action was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and caused actual injury is not specified in the anti-SLAPP statute. In our precedents addressing the nonmoving party's efforts to meet its statutory burden, we have reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party because the responding party bears the burden of proof when the statute applies. Id.; Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 18, 772 A.2d 842. Application of this standard becomes problematic when the evidence to be viewed most favorably to the moving party is disputed and consists only of pleadings and statements in affidavits not yet subject to discovery or trial.