Patin v. Ton Vinh Lee

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion arising from an attorney’s website statement describing a dental-malpractice jury verdict. The court held that, under NRS 41.637(3), a statement must relate to the substantive issues in the litigation and be directed to persons having some interest in the litigation to qualify as a communication made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body. The statement satisfied neither requirement, so it was not protected under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Holdings

1. For a statement to be made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body under NRS 41.637(3), the statement must both relate to the substantive issues in the litigation and be directed to persons having some interest in the litigation. Patin's website statement satisfied neither requirement and therefore was not protected under NRS 41.660.
2. The court did not need to determine whether Dr. Lee demonstrated prima facie evidence of a probability of prevailing because Patin failed to establish that the challenged statement was protected at the first step.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an attorney's website statement summarizing a jury verdict was a statement made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body under NRS 41.637(3), and therefore protected under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute.
2. Whether the Supreme Court needed to decide whether Lee satisfied the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis by presenting prima facie evidence of a probability of prevailing.

Disposition

affirmed