State Anti-SLAPPs and Erie: Murky, but Not Chilling

Authors

Yando Peralta, Fordham University School of Law

Keywords

Anti-SLAPP, Erie, Shady Grove

Abstract

This Note compares the different treatment of state anti-SLAPP laws in federal courts, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove. This Note posits two reasons why special motions to dismiss should not apply in federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. First, state anti-SLAPPs conflict directly with Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because these Federal Rules directly address the question as to dismissal on the pleadings and on summary judgment. Second, a finding that the state anti-SLAPP procedures conflict with the Federal Rules will not frustrate legislatures’ interests in swatting down chilling litigation. This is so because federal courts retain the power to screen meritless defamation suits through the available pleading and summary judgment rules.

Recommended Citation

Yando Peralta, State Anti-SLAPPs and Erie: Murky, but Not Chilling, 26 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 769 (2016).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol26/iss3/6