Defamation and Anti-SLAPP

Defamation involves a false statement made about someone that harms their reputation. But because free speech is involved, the law provides significant leeway for a writer or poster or speaker to express their opinion, or engage in hyperbole, or present statements that are “substantially true” rather than exactly true. Thus, not all harmful or false statements are inherently viable cases or constitute “actionable” defamation.

Privileges specific to free speech and recent court decisions often leave a defamation lawsuit vulnerable to many strong defenses. That includes claims that are based on defamatory statements but are labeled as different torts, such as tortious interference or infliction of emotional distress. Skilled and strategic counsel is required to know exactly how to have these cases dismissed as soon as possible.

When it comes to lawsuits involving matters of public concern, Pashman Stein’s attorneys have extensive experience advising clients on defamation claims and on the nuanced legal issues that arise in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “SLAPP” suits. In SLAPP suits, allegations against individuals, media entities, and businesses typically present claims arising from online content or public commentary, and the lawsuits often aim to intimidate or silence a defendant’s speech through costly and time-consuming litigation, rather than because of any real damage to reputation or a business.

Our lawyers have been at the forefront of utilizing New Jersey’s newly-enacted Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), known as the anti-SLAPP law, to defend protected speech on matters of public concern, and have helped clients in matters involving online reviews of lawyers, commentary on government proceedings or judicial cases, and other allegations of online defamation.

We strategically leverage UPEPA to seek expedited dismissal of meritless claims and recover legal fees if we prevail. By filing an Order to Show Cause with a written brief explaining how the plaintiff’s complaint intended to stifle speech, along with a detailed explanation of how the complaint fails to make a viable case, the case can be quickly resolved upon the court’s decision of whether the law should be applied.

Moreover, a successful anti-SLAPP motion involves a stay of discovery while the court hears argument, and results in a dismissal “with prejudice” (meaning it cannot be amended and refiled). Plus, if a defendant loses an anti-SLAPP motion, the UPEPA allows for an immediate appeal.

The practice includes:

• Defense against libel, slander, and online defamation claims
• Strategic use of UPEPA in New Jersey and anti-SLAPP laws in New York
• Legal challenges to SLAPP suits involving matters of public concern, including government and judicial proceedings
• Advising clients on speech-related risk
• Consultation on defamation claims against non-media private parties
• Emergency litigation strategy, including seeking discovery stays and expedited motions

If you have been sued in New Jersey or New York over something you said—whether online or in another public forum—please contact us for a consultation and assessment of anti-SLAPP protections that may apply to your case. We also defend cases not eligible under the anti-SLAPP law.

While our firm does not bring claims against media entities, we are available to consult with individuals and organizations interested in pursuing defamation suits against private entities or individuals not subject to the anti-SLAPP law.

Professionals

Representative Matters