Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC, et al.

Summary

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of appellants’ special motion for expedited relief under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act in a defamation action arising from an internet review of Paragon Restorations. The court held that, absent speech connected to a governmental proceeding, a moving party must establish that the challenged speech concerns a matter of public concern, even when the action relates to a business review. Applying the content, form, and context factors, the court concluded that the review primarily concerned the appellants’ personal business grievance and was not speech on a matter of public concern.

Holdings

1. In a civil action based on speech that is not in or on an issue under consideration or review in a governmental proceeding, a moving party must establish under Minnesota Statutes section 554.08(b)(3) that the cause of action is based on speech on a matter of public concern, even when the action relates to consumer opinions, commentary, evaluations of complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses under section 554.08(d)(2).
2. Appellants did not establish that Paragon's defamation claim was based on speech on a matter of public concern because the review's dominant theme was appellants' individual experience and grievance arising from their business dispute with Paragon.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party seeking expedited relief under UPEPA for a cause of action based on speech outside a governmental proceeding must establish that the speech concerned a matter of public concern even when the action relates to a consumer opinion, complaint, review, or business rating.
2. Whether appellants established that the internet review underlying Paragon's defamation claim concerned a matter of public concern under the totality-of-the-circumstances test.

Disposition

affirmed