Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...miss the counterclaim filed by Avatar Properties, Inc., in the Residents' class action lawsuit against Avatar Properties and its parent company, AV Homes, Inc. The Residents assert that by failing to adhere to the language of sections 720.304 and 768.295, Florida Statutes (2017), and by not dismissing the counterclaim as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit the court departed from the essential requirements of law....

...The motion alleged that Avatar Properties' counterclaim "openly violates Florida's Anti- SLAPP Statutes because it seeks damages from the [Residents] because they assembled, engaged in free speech, and sought redress before their government," citing sections 768.295 and 720.304.3 The Anti-SLAPP statute provides, in pertinent part: A person or governmental entity in this state may not file or cause to be filed, through its employees or agents, any laws...

...r to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. § 768.295(3)....

...any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a 3For purposes of this opinion, we will refer to section 768.295 as Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute....

...(2017). -6-  governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work. § 768.295(2)(a)....

...rnment and the independent establishments of the state, counties, municipalities, corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities of the state, counties, or municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, commissions, or any agencies thereof." § 768.295(2)(b). The Residents' motion quotes the Anti-SLAPP statute and the operative paragraphs from the counterclaim, and it cites Mr....

...tional rights that the Anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to prevent and that, therefore, the jurisdictional prongs of the certiorari standard have been met. We agree. The legislature enacted the Anti-SLAPP statute in 2000. In creating section 768.295, the legislature specifically found that "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or "SLAPPs," are typically dismissed as unconstitutional, but often not before the defendants are pu...

...individual rights," which courts have recognized as harming individuals' fundamental rights. Id. The statutory language and its stated purpose, in addition to case law governing similar statutes, supports our conclusion that the jurisdictional prongs of the certiorari standard have been met. Section 768.295(3) creates a right not to be subject to meritless suits filed "primarily because [the defendant] has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct...

...ental affidavits. As soon as practicable, the court shall set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the claimant's or governmental entity's response. § 768.295(4).5 The Anti-SLAPP statute plainly authorizes the filing of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment....

...The statute then establishes the duty of the court to, "[a]s soon as practicable, . . . set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after" the claimant files its response. Id. Therefore, the statute sets forth the procedural 5The language of sections 720.304(4)(c) and 768.295(4) are identical in terms of the procedure to be used by the parties and the trial court, as applicable to this case. - 13 - mechanisms by which a SLAPP defendant may invoke its substantive right...

...6We note that while the statute does not state that a SLAPP defendant may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as it does a motion for summary judgment, it provides that a defendant "may move the court for an order . . . granting final judgment." § 768.295(4). - 14 - entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fla....

...The language of the statute does, however, attach the action to the claimant rather than the SLAPP defendant: "[a] person or governmental entity in this state may not file," thus prohibiting the claimant from taking action, rather than "a person or entity may not be sued by a governmental entity or another person." § 768.295(3)....

...SLAPP statute requires. The Residents' motion and supporting affidavit attempt to provide the facts necessary to support dismissal. The trial court must expeditiously address the merits of the Residents' motion under the appropriate standard. See § 768.295(4). IV....

...Based on these allegations, Mr. Thompson sought injunctive relief in Rogers, as well as money damages, against the Florida Bar. He also sought a declaratory judgment that the Florida Bar's actions against him violated Florida's anti-SLAPP statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.295....

...For purposes of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants assume arguendo that the challenged statements are false. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. , ECF No. 138, at p. 13 n.6. This Order proceeds on the same assumption. Defendants have also filed a motion pursuant to Section 768.295 of the Florida Statutes ("the SLAPP Statute")....

...Rather, the Statute provides only for "attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section"-in other words, fees and costs incurred in connection with the SLAPP motion itself. Fla. Stat. § 768.295 (4) (emphasis added)....

...on a motion to dismiss. C. Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Statute At the conclusion of the motion to dismiss, Warner asserts that Plaintiffs complaint falls within Florida’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.295 . (Dkt. 89 at 24-25) As a result, Warner contends that “if and when” the Court grants its motion to dismiss, Warner will file a motion for an award of fees and costs. (Id. at 25); see Fla. Stat. § 768.295 (4) (“The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.”)....

...Currently, Warner does not appear to ask for any relief under the anti-SLAPP statute. For instance, Warner does not contend that resolution of this motion is evaluated under a summary-judgment standard and it does not request an expedited hearing. See Fla. Stat. § 768.295 (4) (providing that a defendant may file a *1234 motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the anti-SLAPP statute has been violated). The Court therefore declines to address the application of Fla. Stat. § 768.295 at this juncture....

or for summary judgment filed pursuant to section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2021), Florida's Strategic

...Lucie Counties and received a federally-funded grant intended for low income homeowners in St. Lucie County. The opponents, who are the petitioners in this court, moved for summary judgment and to dismiss the suit on the merits, arguing that their political speech was protected under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute, section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2018)....

...2d DCA 2019). Given the current state of the law, the appropriate remedy would be for the Supreme Court to amend Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to allow for nonfinal appeals of orders denying summary judgment or dismissal of a claim brought under section 768.295. The express legislative intent of subsection 768.295(4) is to secure a speedy decision at “the earliest possible time” on a summary judgment or motion to dismiss. Facts Sharon “Shanon” Materio was the incumbent candidate running for West Palm Beach City Commission in March of 2018....

...statute as a: communication that is publicly distributed by a television station, radio station, cable television system, satellite system, newspaper, magazine, direct mail, or telephone and that: 1 According to the title of section 768.295, SLAPP is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” -2-  1....

...judgment, arguing that the statements made in the mailer were true, that there was no actual malice, and that Materio’s causes of action were prohibited by Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which protects the exercise of the right of “free speech in connection with public issues.” § 768.295(1), Fla....

...counterclaim” filed against a person or entity that is “without merit” and filed “primarily because” the person or entity engaged in the exercise of a right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. § -5- 768.295(3), Fla. Stat. The Anti-SLAPP statute prohibits such actions and provides a procedural mechanism for SLAPPs to be “expeditiously disposed of by the courts.” § 768.295(1), Fla....

...ate a suit falling under the SLAPP statute. However, Gundel conflicts with the Supreme Court’s handling of certiorari involving immunity-related issues, where the public policy favoring early resolution of a lawsuit is similar to that expressed in section 768.295. In both Keck v....

...When meritless lawsuits are not “expeditiously disposed of,” the SLAPP target will suffer precisely the sort of harm that the statute was designed to prevent. These considerations might well convince the Supreme Court to amend Appellate Rule 9.130 to allow non-final appeals from motions brought under subsection 768.295(4). For these reasons, we hold that the petitioners have not made a prima facie showing of irreparable harm sufficient to invoke this court’s certiorari jurisdiction....

...demonstrate irreparable harm. I write only to demonstrate that if an interlocutory appeal were available to the petitioners, they would be successful in reversing the circuit court’s order. On this record, the circuit court erred in its construction of section 768.295 and in ruling that electioneering communications are not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute. Protected Speech Under the Anti-SLAPP Suit Upon filing their motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, the...

...the mailer constituted protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute. See Gundel, 264 So. 3d at 314 (discussing the shifting burden). The statute protects parties when they exercise “the rights of free speech in connection with public issues.” § 768.295(1), Fla....

...an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work. § 768.295(2)(a) (emphasis added). The fundamental interpretive error committed by the trial judge is that he construed section 768.295(2)(a) narrowly, when the plain language of the statute and proper application of rules of construction demand an expansive interpretation....

...2d 287, 289 (Fla. 2003). As observed by the trial court, the Anti-SLAPP statute’s enumerated list of protected works does not include direct mail pieces or “electioneering communications.” The mailer here fell under the second catchall phrase in section 768.295(2)(a)—“other similar work.” To clarify, the statute expressly protects any written or oral statement made in or in connection with a: • play • magazine article • movie...

...dience in a - 11 - political election. The mailer therefore fits within the statute’s second catchall phrase and is protected by the Anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court erred in two respects in construing section 768.295. First, the strict and narrow construction was improperly imposed on a remedial statute....

...The statute should be construed liberally in order to give effect to the legislation.” Irven v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Services, 790 So. 2d 403, 406 (Fla. 2001) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Klepper v. Breslin, 83 So. 2d 587, 592 (Fla. 1955). As a remedial statute, section 768.295 should be liberally construed to give effect to the legislative intent. The plain language of the statute reveals that the trial court also erroneously applied the expressio unius doctrine....

...1st DCA 2003)). Liberal construction of the statute leads to the conclusion that the defendants met their burden of establishing that the mailer was protected “free speech in connection with public issues” and therefore a protected activity under section 768.295. Materio Failed To Meet Her Burden At Summary Judgment 2 Once an alleged SLAPP target meets its burden, the burden shifts to the party bringing the alleged SLAPP (here, Materio) to demonstrate that their claims are not without merit and were not filed primarily because the target exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue. See Gundel, 264 So. 3d at 313; § 768.295(3). On its face, the mailer is political speech protected under the First Amendment....

...[the defendants].” Mile Marker, Inc. v. Petersen Publ’g, LLC, 811 So. 2d 841, 846-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). Based on the summary judgment evidence, Materio did not meet her burden. Her claims are therefore “without merit” under section 768.295(3). The statements made in the mailer could fairly be drawn from public records....

...Materio brought forth no facts that the defendants knew otherwise. For that reason, Materio failed to establish that her defamation claim was meritorious and the defendants were entitled to summary judgment and a finding that Materio’s lawsuit was a SLAPP, prohibited by section 768.295, Florida Statutes. FORST, J., concurs specially with opinion. - 14 -  “[A] dismissal of a petition seeking common law certiorari represents only a determination that we lack jurisdiction and nothing more.” Bared & Co., Inc....

...Before LINDSEY, HENDON, and BOKOR, JJ.  LINDSEY, J. Appellants Carlos Enrique Luna Lam and Iglesia Cristiana Casa de Dios (Plaintiffs below) appeal from a final order dismissing their defamation action with prejudice pursuant to Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Statute, section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2021)....

...e false, had serious doubts as to their truth, or published them with reckless disregard for, and in purposeful avoidance of, the truth.” Univision moved to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute, section 768.295....

...therefrom must be construed in favor of the non-moving party.’” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 6  This is an issue of first impression for this Court, the resolution of which depends on the interpretation of section 768.295....

...We review the trial court’s interpretation of the statute de novo and begin, as always, with the text of the statute. See, e.g., Page v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 308 So. 3d 953, 958 (Fla. 2020). In 2000, the Florida Legislature enacted section 768.295 for the purpose of prohibiting government entities from engaging in “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” or “SLAPP” suits....

... rights of persons in Florida, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts. § 768.295(1), Fla....

...governmental entity’s violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section. § 768.295(4), Fla....

...PER CURIAM.  Petitioners seek certiorari review of a non-final order denying their joint motion to dismiss a defamation complaint filed by respondents in the circuit court. We write only to address the contention the lawsuit falls within the ambit of section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2022), which prohibits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) as “inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise . . . free speech in connection with public issues.” § 768.295(1), Fla....

...McQueen has not challenged the circuit court's adjudication of that count in this appeal. Ms. McQueen has thus abandoned that issue, and so we affirm the circuit court's judgment as to that count. 6 Ms. McQueen's complaint amounted to a prohibited SLAPP lawsuit7 under section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2020), and that, as such, she was entitled to "an expeditious resolution" of Ms. McQueen's claim. See § 768.295(4). She argued that the statements Ms. McQueen was suing her on constituted protected "free speech in connection with a public issue" and that Ms. McQueen's claim was without merit. See § 768.295(3). Furthermore, Ms....

...Pertinent to our resolution of this appeal, the circuit court concluded that (1) Ms. Baskin was a "media defendant" so that the statements on her vlog and website were protected under section 770.01, (2) Ms. McQueen's complaint was a prohibited SLAPP lawsuit under section 768.295, and (3) the statements complained of "cannot be construed as conveying a defamatory meaning ....

...redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. 9 § 768.295(1)....

...and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances . . . . § 768.295(3) (emphasis added)....

...the article should have included her belief that Ms. Brown attempted to defraud her and that both women had exchanged insults. In November 2021, Appellee BET moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for all counts. Pursuant to section 768.295(1), Florida Statutes,4 BET additionally asserted its right “to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues” and to expeditiously dispose of lawsuits that are “inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise ....

...a Ltd., Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, and Associated Newspapers Ltd., Reach PLC, and MGN Limited jointly moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the statements of which the Appellant complained were 4 Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute, section 768.295, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited, provides, in part: (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public i...

...Angell of Roper, P.A., Orlando, for appellee. KUNTZ, J. William Crosby challenges the circuit court’s order granting the Town of Indian River Shores’ motion to dismiss. The circuit court concluded that the Town’s alleged statements and activities were barred by section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2021), Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute, and protected by the First Amendment....

...bodies, officials, or employees or the electorate.” See Ch. 00-174, Laws of Florida. To stop SLAPP lawsuits, the Florida Legislature enacted the Citizens Participation in Government Act, Chapter 00-174, Laws of Florida. The legislation—codified at section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2021)—is Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. The Anti-SLAPP statute “protect[s] the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues.” § 768.295(1), Fla. Stat. Section 768.295(3) specifically provides: [a] person or governmental entity 1 in this state may not file ....

...peech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state . . . . § 768.295(3), Fla....

...sues. It is just as clear that the Anti-SLAPP statute does not protect a governmental entity from lawsuits filed by its citizens. The Anti-SLAPP statute applies when a “person or entity [is] sued by a governmental entity or another person.” § 768.295(4), Fla....

...If that fails, “[t]he person or entity may file a motion for summary judgment, together with supplemental affidavits, seeking a determination that the claimant’s or governmental entity’s lawsuit has been brought in 1 The statute defines “governmental entity.” See § 768.295(2)(b), Fla....

...representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. § 768.295(3), Fla....

...of Palm Beach Cnty., 806 F.3d 1070, 1074 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 235 (2000)). The Anti-SLAPP statute therefore protects a “person” or “entity” from lawsuits filed by governmental entities and persons. § 768.295(3), Fla. Stat....

...I dissent and would affirm the dismissal. I don’t quarrel with the Anti- SLAPP statute’s purported purpose, which supports the majority’s decision, but I disagree the statute’s wording precludes its application in this case. I start with the statute’s words. Section 768.295(3), Florida Statute 5 (2021) provides: [a] person or governmental entity 2 in this state may not file ....

...my position and prevent us from limiting the statutory provision at issue. “Without some indication to the contrary, general words are to be accorded their full and fair scope” and “are not to be arbitrarily limited.” Antonin 2 The statute defines “governmental entity.” See § 768.295(2)(b), Fla....

...“[I]n the end, general words are general words, and they must be given general effect.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, a person filed a lawsuit against an entity, the Town of Indian Shores, whose council members exercised their constitutional free speech rights in connection with a public issue. Section 768.295(3), Florida Statute (2021) protects the entity, albeit governmental, from such a suit. The trial court reached that conclusion and so do I. I would affirm and so I dissent....

...vs. NORMAN CHRISTOPHER POWELL, Respondent. March 27, 2025 GROSSHANS, J. By statute, Florida prohibits “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” § 768.295, Fla....

...3d DCA 2022), we conclude that certiorari is not a proper basis for reviewing such orders. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the Legislature’s stated purpose in crafting the statute—to safeguard the exercise of constitutionally protected free-speech rights by prohibiting lawsuits targeted at suppressing them. § 768.295(1)....

..., we amend (through separate opinion) Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). That amendment will provide for interlocutory review of nonfinal orders that deny qualifying motions filed pursuant to sections 718.1224(5), 720.304(4)(c), or 768.295(4), Florida Statutes (2024)....

...such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. . . . It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts. § 768.295(1), Fla....

...arising from a governmental entity’s violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section. § 768.295(3)-(4). Emphasizing various features of this statute, Vericker asserts that the erroneous denial of an Anti-SLAPP claim should qualify as irreparable harm for purposes of certiorari review....

...Daily Beast Co., LLC., 477 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1323 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“Florida’s statute is a garden variety fee shifting provision, which the Florida [L]egislature enacted to accomplish a ‘fundamental state policy’—deterring SLAPP suits.” (citing § 768.295(1))). Though we do not share Powell’s narrow view of the statute, we agree that the statute does not provide traditional immunity from suit....

...ed statutes); Tsuji v. Fleet, 366 So. 3d 1020, 1028-29 (Fla. 2023) (looking to how the Legislature used a key term in other statutes). Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute does not use the word “immunity” or words with comparable meaning. See § 768.295....

...the development of a factual record. The Anti-SLAPP statute also specifically notes that aggrieved parties will have to avail themselves of standard litigation features—such as case-dispositive motions and hearings—if they are to benefit from the statute. See § 768.295(4)....

...text conveys the Legislature’s objective that lawsuits targeting protected speech be expeditiously resolved. In stating the interests served by the statute, the Legislature noted the importance of “expeditious[] dispos[ition]” of SLAPP suits “by the courts.” § 768.295(1)....

...To carry out that objective, the Legislature added a unique timing requirement that is not part of typical civil cases or claims. That is, courts are to resolve Anti-SLAPP claims “at the earliest possible time” once the necessary filings are submitted by the parties. § 768.295(4)....

...SC2022-1084, 2023 WL 3151092 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2023). Now, with the benefit of briefing and oral argument in this case, we agree that immediate review of nonfinal orders denying qualifying Anti-SLAPP motions under sections 718.1224(5), 720.304(4)(c), or 768.295(4), Florida Statutes (2024), conforms to the Legislature’s direction that Anti-SLAPP claims are to be resolved “at the earliest possible time.” 4 In doing so, we rely on “our constitutional authority to ensure that Florida’s procedural rules of 4....

...Haney of Bartlett, Loeb, Hinds & Thompson, PLLC, Tampa, and Steven Gieseler and Nicholas M. Gieseler of Bartlett, Loeb, Hinds & Thompson, PLLC, Stuart, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying her motion to dismiss a complaint under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. See § 768.295, Fla....

...Aid, Inc., until she was no longer allowed to volunteer for the organization due to complaints about her. 1 Animal Aid then sued Lee, alleging that Lee made defamatory statements about Animal Aid. Lee moved for summary judgment and in part relied on section 768.295, commonly referred to as the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. 1 Appellee Rhoda Mann was Lee’s codefendant....

...Aid’s actions violated the Anti-SLAPP statute. Without the trial court making such an express finding that Animal Aid’s defamation suit violated the Anti-SLAPP statute, then, as a result, Lee would not be entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.295(4)....

...2 The order dismissed Animal Aid’s complaint and Lee’s counterclaim with prejudice. The trial court retained jurisdiction to entertain any post-judgment motions, including motions for attorney’s fees. Lee then moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.295(4), Florida Statutes (2018), the Anti-SLAPP statute....

...action that is (a) ‘without merit’ and (b) ‘primarily’ because the defendant ‘exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue.’” Bongino v. Daily Beast Co., No. 19-14472-CIV, 2021 WL 4976287, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2021) (quoting § 768.295(3), Fla....

...It is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. § 768.295(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Further, section 768.295 provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a party who prevails on an Anti-SLAPP claim: A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another 4  person in violation of this...

...om a governmental entity’s violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section. § 768.295(4), Fla. Stat. (2018). A party who prevails on an Anti-SLAPP claim is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 768.295(4)....

...act as a defense, without any ruling as to its applicability.” Id. It is clear that there must be an express finding by the trial court that the petitioner’s suit violated the Anti-SLAPP statute for the defendant to be entitled to fees under section 768.295(4)....

...free speech in connection with a public issue.” Bongino, 2021 WL 4976287, at *4. Lee even admits that “the arbitrator did not affirmatively (or at least, expressly) assume the task of determining whether Animal Aid’s defamation action violates section 768.295, Fla....

...ction with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section’—in other words, fees and costs incurred in connection with the SLAPP motion itself.” Berisha v. Lawson, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1157 n.8 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2018) (quoting § 768.295(4), Fla....

...He also challenges the trial court's order staying discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. 1 We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).  The trial court dismissed Mr. Mishiyev's defamation cause of action pursuant to Florida's Anti-SLAPP2 statute, see § 768.295, Fla....

...Their accusations of unseemly behavior allegedly "culminated in [Mr. Mishiyev's] YouTube channels being terminated," hindered his employability, and harmed his reputation. Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint as a meritless SLAPP suit. See § 768.295....

...136, Evidence, § 133)). 6  Undisputedly, Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute protects the right to exercise "free speech in connection with public issues . . . as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution." § 768.295(1)....

...ideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work. § 768.295(2)(a) (emphasis added)....

...speech."5 See WPB Residents for Integrity in Gov't, Inc. v. Materio, 284 So. 3d 555, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (Gross, J., concurring specially) (citing Samuel J. Morley, Florida's Expanded Anti-SLAPP Law: More Protection for Targeted Speakers, 90 Fla. B.J. 16, 22 (Nov. 2016)); see also § 768.295(2)(a). Yet the trial court reached too far to find that all of the alleged defamatory statements were protected.6 The trial court assumed that the statements reflected a mere public feud carried out on air and in related media. B...

...18, 2015, paragraph VII at 3). 6 Seemingly, Appellees believe that any statement made by Mr. Davis is protected by the Anti-SLAPP statute because he is a broadcaster. They ignore that the speech itself must be made in connection with a radio broadcast. See § 768.295(2)(a). 8 made defamatory statements to YouTube in December 2019 and to the nightclub owner in November 2020. b....

...Jackson of The Law Office of Nnamdi S. Jackson, P.A., Weston, for petitioners. No appearance for respondent. PER CURIAM. Petitioners seek certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. § 768.295(4), Fla....

...Aid, Inc., until she was no longer allowed to volunteer for the organization due to complaints about her. 1 Animal Aid then sued Lee, alleging that Lee made defamatory statements about Animal Aid. Lee moved for summary judgment and in part relied on section 768.295, commonly referred to as the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. The parties subsequently attended non-binding arbitration, and the trial court adopted the arbitrator’s findings and dismissed both Animal Aid’s complaint and Lee’s counterclaim with prejudice....

...Aid’s actions violated the Anti-SLAPP statute. Without the trial court making such an express finding that Animal Aid’s defamation suit violated the Anti-SLAPP statute, then, as a result, Lee would not be entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.295(4)....

...2 The order dismissed Animal Aid’s complaint and Lee’s counterclaim with prejudice. The trial court retained jurisdiction to entertain any post-judgment motions, including motions for attorney’s fees. Lee then moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.295(4), Florida Statutes (2018), the Anti-SLAPP statute....

...action that is (a) ‘without merit’ and (b) ‘primarily’ because the defendant ‘exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue.’” Bongino v. Daily Beast Co., No. 19-14472-CIV, 2021 WL 4976287, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2021) (quoting § 768.295(3), Fla....

...It is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. § 768.295(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Further, section 768.295 provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a party who prevails on an Anti-SLAPP claim: A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious...

...om a governmental entity’s violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section. § 768.295(4), Fla. Stat. (2018). A party who prevails on an Anti-SLAPP claim is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 768.295(4)....

...its applicability.” Id. It is clear that there must be an express finding by the trial court that the petitioner’s suit violated the Anti-SLAPP statute for the defendant to 5 be entitled to fees under section 768.295(4)....

...free speech in connection with a public issue.” Bongino, 2021 WL 4976287, at *4. Lee even admits that “the arbitrator did not affirmatively (or at least, expressly) assume the task of determining whether Animal Aid’s defamation action violates section 768.295, Fla....

...ction with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section’—in other words, fees and costs incurred in connection with the SLAPP motion itself.” Berisha v. Lawson, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1157 n.8 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2018) (quoting § 768.295(4), Fla....

...June 5, 2024). 5 Thus, that challenged language is part of a longer message that Wilson retweeted. 5 Wilson's motion and the trial court's ruling Wilson moved to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, invoking Florida's "anti-SLAPP statute," section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2023)....

...Flynn further insists that he was under the impression below that Wilson's motion for summary judgment was a truncated one somehow governed by the anti-SLAPP statute rather than by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. But the plain language of section 768.295(4) supports no such impression: that section does not provide an alternative summary judgment procedure to that set forth in rule 1.510; rather, it simply anticipates that in cases implicating First Amendment concerns, summary judgment motions may be filed early in the case....

...But he did neither. Finally, on this summary judgment record (with Flynn submitting no counteraffidavits), we find no error in the trial court's determinations that Flynn's lawsuit against Wilson lacked merit and that it was brought "primarily" because of Wilson's exercise of his First Amendment rights. See § 768.295(3). Conclusion 17  We have the privilege of living in a country with a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be un...

...Tandy, for respondent. Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. HENDON, J.  Mitchell Scott Novik seeks to quash a non-final order of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss Mango’s Tropical Café, LLC’s counterclaim for business disparagement pursuant to section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2022).1 We dismiss the petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. Vericker v....

...We follow the Vericker court in certifying conflict with Davis v. Mishiyev, 339 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), Baird v. Mason Classical Acad., Inc., 317 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), and Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 264 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Petition dismissed, conflict certified. 1 Section 768.295 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited” and commonly known as Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute, prohibits lawsuits that “are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues.” § 768.295(1), Fla....

...Law Firm of Juan-Carlos Planas, P.A., and Juan-Carlos Planas, for appellant. Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., and Thomas R. Julin, and Timothy J. McGinn, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. See § 768.295(4), Fla....

...Kimberly Fischer, Winter Springs, pro se. August 25, 2023 EISNAUGLE, J., Petitioner, Robert Stanley Johnston, seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s nonfinal order denying his motion for final judgment pursuant to section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2021) (the “Anti-SLAPP statute”)....

...be appealable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, obviating the necessity of determining whether common law certiorari would alternatively be available.”). 2 Given our reading of Keck, we need not decide whether the language of section 768.295 creates immunity from suit. 3  _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla....

...Jonathan Kiernan Godwin petitions for certiorari review of an order denying his amended motion to dismiss Stephen Michelini's complaint for defamation. In his motion, Godwin asserted that Michelini's complaint violated Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute, section 768.295, Florida Statutes (2021)....

...Pizzi, Jr., P.A., and Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., for respondent. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. EMAS, J.  Petitioners seek certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying their motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute, section 768.295(4), Fla....

...Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute.” Vericker, 343 So. 3d at 1281. The Committee filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court, proposing an amendment to rule 9.130 to authorize district courts of appeal to review nonfinal orders that “deny a motion under section 768.295(4), Florida Statutes.” See In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, Case No....

Petitioner published multiple critical 1 Section 768.295 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Strategic