Jane Doe & another v. Mark Thorell & another

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H. The plaintiffs alleged defamation, interference with disability-related educational rights, and emotional distress based on a letter that the defendants sent to school officials concerning disruptive classroom behavior by an unnamed student. Applying the two-stage framework from Bristol Asphalt Co. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., the court held that the claims were based solely on petitioning activity and that the plaintiffs had not shown the petitioning lacked reasonable factual support or any arguable legal basis.

Holdings

1. Communications to private parties may constitute enlistment petitioning under § 59H when they are reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect governmental consideration of an issue. The defendants' communications with other parents, followed by distribution of the letter to those parents so they could express support to school officials, constituted enlistment petitioning.
2. The defendants met the first-stage burden of showing that the plaintiffs' claims were based on the defendants' petitioning activities alone and had no substantial basis apart from those activities.
3. The plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants' petitioning was devoid of any reasonable factual support.
4. The plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants' requests for classroom-placement reconsideration, discipline, or other school action were devoid of any arguable basis in law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants' communications to school officials and other parents constituted petitioning activity protected by G. L. c. 231, § 59H.
2. Whether the plaintiffs' claims were based solely on the defendants' petitioning activities for purposes of the first stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
3. Whether the plaintiffs showed that the defendants' petitioning was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law.
4. Whether the request to reconsider or change the child's classroom placement lacked an arguable legal basis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
5. Whether the request for discipline or other school action lacked an arguable legal basis because some recipients allegedly lacked direct disciplinary authority.

Disposition

affirmed