On May 15, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Satz v. Keshet Starr.  Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a defamation suit against defendants.  Defendants filed an o order to show cause to dismiss the case and for attorneys’ fees under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq. (“UPEPA”).  The UPEPA, enacted in 2023, sought to make it more difficult to use the legal system as a weapon to bully individuals into silence by filing what have been known as SLAPP (“strategic lawsuits against public participation”) suits.

Before the trial court could rule on defendants’ application, plaintiff dismissed his case.  Defendants tried to pursue their fee demand, but the Law Division denied that relief.  Defendants sought and were granted leave to appeal.

Defendants argue, among other things, that the case should have been reopened under Rule 4:50-1(f) to allow them to seek fees.  The result below, they say, allows plaintiffs filing lawsuits that violate the UPEPA to dismiss their cases without consequence after seeing the strength of defendants’ motions to dismiss.  They cite a provision of the UPEPA that provides that “[a] voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a responding party’s cause of action, or part of a cause of action, that is the subject of an order to show cause under [section 51 of the UPEPA] does not affect a moving party’s right to obtain a ruling on the order to show cause and seek costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses under section [58 of the UPEPA].”

Plaintiff responds that, in filing their order to show cause for dismissal, defendants failed to follow the requirements of Rule 4:67, which governs summary actions.  Plaintiff also argues that this was not a UPEPA case at all, as it involved only his private defamation claim, not anything involving public participation.

The briefs in this case are available here.  The oral argument can be viewed here.