Today List Bloom filed an anti-SLAPP motion in Wynn v. Bloom. You can find her motion, which I’ll discuss in greater detail, below:

In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) the Supreme Court recognized our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” This core First Amendment principle requires that a public figure who brings a defamation claim must prove publication with “actual malice.” In other words, the publisher must know the statement is false or have a reckless disregard for the truth. In order to give effect to Sullivan and its progeny, courts discharge their constitutional duty by resolving defamation cases early on.

This Constitutional mandate is heightened in states where the substantive law of defamation is subject to an Anti-SLAPP law. Nevada is one such state. Defendants Lisa Bloom and the Bloom Firm hereby file their Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to NRS 41.660 (the “Anti-SLAPP Motion”). In federal court, Anti-SLAPP motions are treated as motions for summary judgment invoking the substantive portions of the Nevada AntiSLAPP Statute, NRS 41.635 et seq. Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice (granting summary judgment), award Defendants their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in defending themselves from Plaintiff’s meritless suit, and award Defendants $10,000 in statutory damages pursuant to NRS 41.670(1)(b).