Abrams v. Sanson

• Decision Date: 05 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 738838, No. 75834,738838
• Citation: 458 P.3d 1062
• Parties: Jennifer V. ABRAMS; and The Abrams & Mayo Law Firm, Appellants, v. Steve W. SANSON; and Veterans in Politics International, Inc., Respondents. Jennifer V. Abrams; and The Abrams & Mayo Law Firm, Appellants, v. Louis C. Schneider; and Law Offices of Louis C. Schneider, LLC, Respondents.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

458 P.3d 1062

Jennifer V. ABRAMS; and The Abrams & Mayo Law Firm, Appellants,

v.Steve W. SANSON; and Veterans in Politics International, Inc., Respondents.

Jennifer V. Abrams; and The Abrams & Mayo Law Firm, Appellants,

v.Louis C. Schneider; and Law Offices of Louis C. Schneider, LLC, Respondents.

No. 738838

No. 75834

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED MARCH 05, 2020

Willick Law Group and Marshal S. Willick, Las Vegas, for Appellants.

McLetchie Law and Margaret A. McLetchie and Alina M. Shell, Las Vegas, for Respondents Steve W. Sanson and Veterans in Politics International, Inc.

Joseph W. Houston, Las Vegas, for Respondents Louis C. Schneider and Law Offices of Louis C. Schneider, LLC.

BEFORE GIBBONS, HARDESTY and STIGLICH, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, STIGLICH, J.:

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes allow defendants to file a special motion to dismiss lawsuits initiated to chill free speech. In this appeal, we consider whether statements sent to a listserv of email subscribers criticizing an attorney’s courtroom conduct and practices are protected as good-faith communications under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes. At issue are respondent Steve Sanson’s allegedly defamatory statements regarding appellant Jennifer Abrams’ conduct at and following a family court proceeding against opposing counsel, respondent Louis Schneider. We hold that such statements are protected and conclude that Sanson showed by a preponderance of the evidence that his statements were good-faith communications in furtherance of the right to free speech regarding a matter of public concern, except for his private telephone statements made to nonparty David Schoen. We further conclude that Abrams did not demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on her claims. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s orders granting Sanson’s and Schneider’s special motions to dismiss.

FACTS

Jennifer Abrams and Louis Schneider were opposing counsel in a family law case. Schneider allegedly gave a video of a closed-court hearing in that case to Steve Sanson, president of Veterans in Politics International, Inc. (VIPI). Sanson then published a series of articles on VIPI’s website concerning the judiciary and Abrams’ courtroom conduct and practices. The articles were also sent to VIPI’s email subscribers and published through various social media outlets.

The first article, "Nevada Attorney attacks a Clark County Family Court Judge in Open Court," included the full video of the court hearing that involved an exchange between Abrams and Judge Jennifer L. Elliott. The article also included quotations from the hearing, such as Judge Elliott noting "undue influence" and "[t]here are enough ethical problems[,] don’t add to the problem." Sanson stated that "[i]f there is an ethical problem or the law has been broken by an attorney the judge is mandated by law to report it to the Nevada State Bar," that there are "no boundaries in our courtroom," and that Abrams "crosse[d] the line."

The second article, "District Court Judge Bullied by Family Attorney Jennifer Abrams," republished the video of the hearing after Sanson temporarily removed it following an order issued by Judge Elliott. The article reported on what had taken place and stated that Abrams "bullied" Judge Elliott, that her behavior was "disrespectful and obstructionist" as well as "embarrassing," and that obtaining Judge Elliott’s order appeared to be an "attempt by Abrams to hide her behavior from the rest of the legal community and the public."

In the third article, "Law Frowns on Nevada Attorney Jennifer Abrams’ ‘Seal-Happy Practices," Sanson criticized Abrams’ practice of moving to seal records in her cases. Sanson stated that Abrams "appears" to be "seal happy"; seals her cases in contravention to "openness and transparency"; "appears" to have "sealed [cases] to protect her own reputation, rather than to serve a compelling client privacy or safety interest"; engages in "judicial browbeating"; is an "over-zealous, disrespectful lawyer[ ] who obstruct[s] the judicial process"; and has obtained an "overbroad, unsubstantiated order" that is "specifically disallowed by law."

The fourth article, "Lawyers acting badly in a Clark County Family Court," included a link to a similarly titled video on YouTube of a court hearing involving Abrams. Sanson stated that Abrams was "acting badly."

The fifth article, "Clark County Family Court Judge willfully deceives a young child from the bench and it is on the record," included a link to the "Seal-Happy" article about Abrams as an "unrelated story" of "how Judges and Lawyers seal cases to cover their own bad behaviors." The article in general criticized Judge Rena Hughes for misleading an unrepresented child in family court. Sanson later posted three videos on YouTube depicting the Abrams & Mayo Law Firm’s representation of a client in another divorce action.

In a subsequent telephone conversation initiated by David J. Schoen, an employee of the Abrams & Mayo Law Firm, during which Schoen asked Sanson to remove the videos or blur his face, Sanson allegedly made several unflattering comments about Abrams. These statements allegedly included "words to [the] effect" that Abrams was "unethical and a criminal," that Abrams "doesn’t follow the law," that Abrams was "breaking the law by sealing her cases," and that Abrams "started this war."

Abrams and the Abrams & Mayo Law Firm (hereinafter collectively, Abrams) subsequently filed a complaint against Sanson and VIPI (hereinafter collectively, Sanson), and against Schneider and the Law Offices of Louis C. Schneider, LLC (hereinafter collectively, Schneider) based on these articles and statements, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, business disparagement, civil conspiracy, and concert of action.¹

Sanson and Schneider filed separate anti-SLAPP special motions to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.660. The district court granted Sanson’s special motion to dismiss, finding that he met his initial burden because (1) the statements concerned issues of public concern relating to an attorney or professional’s performance of a job or the public’s interests in observing justice; (2) the statements were made in a public forum on a publicly accessible website, and republishing them by email did not remove them from a public forum; and (3) the statements were either true or statements of opinion incapable of being false. The district court further found that Abrams failed to meet her burden to provide prima facie evidence of a probability of prevailing on her claims. The district court thereafter granted Schneider’s special motion to dismiss, finding that Schneider did not directly make any of the statements at issue but was being held liable for statements made by Sanson, which were protected. Abrams appeals.

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s grant or denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss de novo.

Coker v. Sassone, 135 Nev. 8, 15, 432 P.3d 746, 751 (2019). A special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute should be granted where the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is based upon a good-faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech regarding a matter of public concern, NRS 41.600(3)(a), and the plaintiff cannot show with "prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim," NRS 41.660(3)(b). Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev. 35, 37, 389 P.3d 262, 267 (2017). A good-faith communication in furtherance of the right to free speech regarding a matter of public concern includes any communication that is (1) "made in direct connection with an issue of public interest," (2) "in a place open to the public or in a public forum," and (3) "which is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood." NRS 41.637(4).

Statements about an attorney’s courtroom conduct and practice of sealing cases directly connect to an issue of public interest

Abrams first argues that the statements at issue are not protected under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes because they are not directly connected with an issue of public interest. We disagree.

In Shapiro v. Welt , we adopted California’s guiding principles in determining whether an issue is of public interest:

(1) "public interest" does not equate with mere curiosity;

(2) a matter of public interest should be something of concern to a substantial number of people; a matter of concern to a speaker and a relatively small specific audience is not a matter of public interest;

(3) there should be some degree of closeness between the challenged statements and the asserted public interest—the assertion of a broad and amorphous public interest is not sufficient;

(4) the focus of the speaker’s conduct should be the public interest rather than a mere effort to gather ammunition for another round of private controversy; and

(5) a person cannot turn otherwise private information into a matter of public interest simply by communicating it to a large number of people.

133 Nev. at 39-40, 389 P.3d at 268 (quoting Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Assocs., Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 957, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ). We also previously noted that public interest is "broadly" defined. Coker , 135 Nev. at 14, 432 P.3d at 751. Applying these principles, we hold that the statements at issue directly connect to an issue of public interest.

Sanson’s statements depict and criticize Abrams’ behavior in court and towards Judge Elliott, which directly connects to the public’s interest in an attorney’s courtroom conduct. The public has an interest in an attorney’s courtroom conduct that is not mere curiosity, as it serves as a warning to both potential and current clients looking to hire or retain the lawyer. See, e.g., Choyce v. SF Bay Area Indep. Media Ctr., No. 13-CV-01842-JST, 2013 WL 6234628, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013) (finding that...