Wynn v. Associated Press, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Sept. 5, 2024)

Nevada law recognizes the importance of First Amendment rights and the chilling effect that defamation suits can have on free speech and the right to petition. To mitigate this, Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes allow defendants to file a special motion to dismiss, enabling early resolution of meritless claims. Courts follow a two-pronged framework to resolve these motions. Under prong one, defendants must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is based on a good faith communication on an issue of public concern. If this burden is met, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff under the second prong to present prima facie evidence demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the claim. Additionally, if the case involves a public figure as the plaintiff, they must demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that the communication was made with actual malice. In this case, respondents satisfied their burden under prong one, while the plaintiff failed to meet his burden under prong two. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision granting the respondents’ renewed special motion to dismiss.