Crystal Cox's counter claim is not a frivolous lawsuit. RANDAZZA sued COX, the court DENIED Cox the use of Nevada's alleged all powerful SLAPP laws, though clearly his case was frivolous and without merit what so ever.
''Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute has been dramatically expanded, bringing Nevada into line with California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, and the District of Columbia as having the most comprehensive anti-SLAPP statutes in the nation. Changes include:
Expands the Breadth and Scope of Protected Speech. The new law expands protected conduct to include any “communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum,” so long as the statement is truthful or made without knowledge of falsehood.
Allows For an Immediate Appeal of a Denied Anti-SLAPP Motion. The new law modifies NRS 41.650 so that a movant is immune from any civil action – not just liability – from claims arising from his or her protected speech, which allows for an immediate appeal.
Expedites Judicial Consideration of Anti-SLAPP Motions. Under the new law’s changes, the time for a court to rule on a motion after filing is reduced to 7 judicial days from 30 after the motion is served upon the plaintiff.
Creates a $10,000 Stick to Deter Frivolous Claims. In addition to allowing for a movant’s recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees, the bill amends NRS 41.670 to allow the court to discretionarily award a successful movant up to $10,000 in addition to his or her reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. This serves as a significant disincentive and warning for those who might wish to pursue censorious litigation.
Creates SLAPP-Back Provision to Prevent Frivolous Anti-SLAPP Motions. The bill amends 41.670 so that a court denying a special motion to dismiss must award the claimant to successfully defeat the Anti-SLAPP motion his or her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees upon finding that the Anti-SLAPP motion was “frivolous or vexatious.”
Retains Key Elements From Nevada’s Existing Laws. While the bill represents a massive change to Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP laws, Nevada’s existing statutes had a number of powerful provisions that were unique among Anti-SLAPP provisions are fortunately still intact.
The Nevada Attorney General, or the “chief legal officer or attorney of a political subdivision” in Nevada may still “defend or otherwise support the person against whom the action is brought.” NRS 41.660(1)(b). SB 286 also retains the successful Anti-SLAPP movant’s right to bring a separate action against the defeated plaintiff for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and the attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the new action.
Read more from Marc Randazza, who was instrumental in helping get the law amended, here:
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/nevada-has-a-new-anti-slapp-law/
Read the full text of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law here:
https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013/App#/77th2013/Bill/Text/SB286
Source
http://www.anti-slapp.org/recent/nevada-has-a-new-anti-slapp-law/
