Two Courts Uphold UPEPA Fee Awards After Voluntary Dismissals

The UPEPA is weathering appellate decisions just fine so far.
The Uniform Public Express Protection Act (UPEPA) in just a few years has become the most ubiquitous body of Anti-SLAPP law in the world. Like most other Anti-SLAPP laws, the UPEPA provides for a special motion to cause the dismissal at an early stage of meritless litigation which infringes upon a person's free speech and related rights. If the defendant in such a case wins the special motion and the offending cause of action is dismissed, then the defendant who brought the special motion must be awarded their attorney fees, expenses and costs in relation to the special motion. This provides a powerful deterrent to such meritless litigation being brought against them in the first place.
But what if, after the UPEPA special motion is brought, the plaintiff who brought the offending cause of action decides not to contest the special motion but instead just voluntarily dismisses it? In that instance, can the defendant who went to the trouble of preparing and filing the UPEPA special motion still be awarded attorney fees for their trouble?
The answer to this question was recently answered by two courts in different states (New Jersey and Kentucky) on two consecutive days, and which reached the same conclusion. We'll examine the opinions of those courts now. These opinions are Satz v. Keset Starr, 2025 WL 1522032 (N.J.App., May 29, 2025), and Johnson v. Kearney, 2025 WL 1536078 (Ky.App., May 30, 2025).
In the Satz case in New Jersey, the defendants circulated a flyer that advocated that the plaintiff get a religious divorce. The flyer contained an unfavorable photo of the plaintiff and suggested a protest outside of the home of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a variety of things related to the flyer and asked for $30 million in damages. When the plaintiff moved for default judgment, the defendants responded to the motion with request that the case be dismissed under the UPEPA. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion and that same day the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The defendants then moved to reopen the case for the purpose of assessing fees, costs and expenses under the UPEPA. The trial court, however, refused to consider the defendants' request on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff filed his action was either frivolous or intended to harass the defendants. The defendants appealed this ruling.
Now turning to the Johnson case in Kentucky, where two candidates in the 2024 Republican primary for state attorney were squabbling over an endorsement by the local Fraternal Order of Police. Ultimately, one candidate sued the other, and the other candidate (the defendant) filed a UPEPA special motion to dismiss. Concluding that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith, the trial judge encouraged the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice to refiling. The plaintiff did dismiss the complaint and the judge refused to award the defendant fees, costs and expenses because the case had been dismissed. The defendant appealed this ruling.
The courts in both Satz and Johnson reached the same conclusion in the same way. Both courts determined that the outcome could be determined by interpreting the plain text of the UPEPA without the need to reference external sources.
The statutory interpretation of the UPEPA in these cases was very straightforward:
First, the UPEPA provides that a voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action does not affect the moving party's right to seek attorney fees, costs and expenses;
Second, the UPEPA deems a party's voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action ― while a UPEPA special motion is pending ― to establish that the moving party prevailed on special motion; and
Third, the UPEPA states that the award of such attorney fees, costs and expenses is mandatory where the moving party has prevailed on the special motion.
Therefore, where a cause of action has been voluntarily dismissed while a UPEPA cause of action is pending, the moving party is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses despite the voluntarily dismissal. This was the ultimate ruling of both courts, which reversed the trial court and remanded the cases for the calculation of the attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to the respective moving parties in each case.
The Satz opinion additionally noted that one reason for this outcome was to keep a party who brought an offending cause of action from simply dismissing the cause of action and then possibly re-asserting it later. This would defeat the purpose of the UPEPA to free the defendant from having to further litigate the cause of action.
The Johnson opinion commented on the fact that "good faith" by the party who filed the cause of action is not any defense to the UPEPA's mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses ― it doesn't matter at all why that party brought the cause of action, only that it infringes upon protect rights.
ANALYSIS
Both of these appellate courts arrived at the result desired by the UPEPA drafting committee when we were writing the Act: In the event of a voluntary dismissal after a special motion has been brought, the moving party will still be entitled to mandatory attorney fees, costs and expenses.
There was considerable debate within the UPEPA drafting committee over this outcome, mostly due to something called the innocent violator.
Basically, the drafting committee realized that the cases which infringe upon protected expression could be divided into two categories. The first category is the classic SLAPP case which is intended to harass, punish, or retaliate, etc., against the speaker for the purpose of making them shut up. Recall that the acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The 'Strategic' part of this is that the action would intended ― specifically designed ― to cause harm to the speaker by forcing them to incur legal costs in defense. This wrongful intent characterizes this first category of cases infringing protected expression.
The second category is exactly the opposite of the first: The second category is where the plaintiff who brought the cause of action had no intent to misuse the cause of action, but instead stumbled into an infringement of public expression because their counsel was lazy or careless, or the public expression issue was very technical and not easy to spot. This is the aforementioned innocent violator.
The drafting committee recognized that an innocent violator should be treated differently than somebody who intentionally brought abusive litigation. But how should that treatment differ? There were suggestions that a warning letter should be sent before the special motion was brought, that the innocent violator should be allowed to dismiss or reframe the infringing cause of action without penalty, or that attorney fees should not be assessed against an innocent violator. In their opinions, the Satz and Johnson courts discuss these things as well (although whether the plaintiffs in those cases could be characterized as innocent violators is somewhat dubious).
What was the solution?
The idea of a warning letter ― similar to that required before a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is brought ― seemed like a good one. But there were at least two problems with this solution. First, it would be a complete waste of time to have a warning letter sent to the first (abusive) category of violators, who at any rate didn't deserve a warning. Second, if a warning letter was sent and the action thereafter voluntarily dismissed before the filing of the special motion, then the defendant (speaker) compensated for the legal fees for having the letter written and such letters can be quite costly. Thus, the warning letter idea was rejected.
The next idea, being that the plaintiff should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss the infringing cause of action after the special motion was filed, was similarly rejected. Preparing and filing the special motion is costly, and if the plaintiff was simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss without any penalty, then the defendant could not be compensated for having to prepare and file the special motion. This was also a bad idea for the reason that a first category plaintiff engaged in abusive litigation could simply later re-file the same cause of action and cause the defendant the same trouble all over again. So this idea was rejected too.
The third idea was to not assess attorney's fees against an innocent violator. While this sounds at first like a good idea, it is actually a terrible one. The problem here is the UPEPA would first have to define what an innocent violation was, and that would draw into question the plaintiff's intent. The parties would then have to litigate the plaintiff's intent, which would tremendously exacerbate the very litigation that the UPEPA was supposed to have quickly and efficiently gotten rid of in the first place. That idea was quickly axed.
Where the UPEPA ended up is accurately described in the Satz and Johnson opinions: The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the cause of action that is the subject of the special motion, but that voluntary dismissal is treated as a resolution of the special motion in favor of the speaker and thus entitles the speaker to the mandatory award of attorney fees.
This is a suitable middle-ground solution. By voluntarily dismissing the special motion, the plaintiff cuts off the attorney fees incurred by the speaker at the special motion ― the speaker could not, for instance, ask for attorney fees to file a reply brief (since no opposition brief was filed) or to attend the hearing on the special motion (which is no longer necessary).
For those who would suggest that this outcome is harsh for an innocent violator, the bottom line is that if somebody is going to litigate in an area which might implicate protected expression issues, then they should be particularly careful. One who has stumbled into a violation of protected expression will not be rewarded by a 'get out of jail' card for their carelessness.
This is basically what the Satz and Johnson opinions conclude and in this respect they are both right on target.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

30 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Podcast Bro Theo Von Questions How 'America First' Trump Really Is Amid Potential Iran War

Popular podcast host Theo Von joined Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) Friday in taking a hard stance against potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Khanna appeared on Von's podcast 'This Past Weekend' to discuss several topics, from foreign affairs to AI. At one point in the segment, Khanna promoted the War Powers Resolution, a bipartisan bill he introduced with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) aimed at prohibiting U.S. armed forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. During his discussion with Von, Khanna noted several people in MAGA's base who have been vocal about the U.S. not going to war with Iran, including Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.). Von agreed with the two conservatives, stating, 'this is a horrible idea.' 'Yeah, people say, 'Well, you don't know a ton about the Middle East.' Like, that's fine. I don't want people I know, my friends, getting called up. I don't want the children of my friends getting called over to die,' Von said. 'I don't even understand how it's an option.' Von, who had Donald Trump on his podcast last year, helped the president reach younger male voters during the 2024 presidential election. Khanna remarked on the influence of Von's interview with Trump, stating the podcaster made the president 'the most human that I've actually seen him,' after the two opened up about the president's brother, alcoholism and cocaine. Last month, Von performed a controversial comedy act at a military base in Qatar before Trump addressed U.S. and Qatari troops. The podcast host has seemingly gotten closer to the Trump family, even having dinner with Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, after they attended his comedy show in Miami. Miami looked good on you @TheoVon ! Come back and visit us soon !😎 — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) May 14, 2025 Now, however, Von is beginning to question the 'America First' claims that Trump made during his campaign. When Khanna asked Von if he knew anyone who was supporting the idea of the U.S. going to war with Iran, Von responded, 'Nobody.' I asked @TheoVon if he knows anyone who says we should go to war with Nobody. I feel like it was supposed to be America first. — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 20, 2025 Von went on to tell Khanna that 'it feels like we are just working for Israel,' and that he believes a lot of Americans are beginning to feel 'disillusioned' by U.S. leaders. 'I felt like it was supposed to be America first, like, we're focusing on, like, 'What are we doing to get things back into America,' right? To like, increase like the purpose of being an American, to refill our hearts with blood and ... make us feel something again here, and make us be excited about being an American,' Von said. JD Vance Tells Theo Von Musk Made A 'Huge Mistake' Going After Trump Exclusive: Israel Seeks Swift Action On Iran, Sources Say, With A Split U.S. Administration Trump Says He Should've Gotten 5 Nobel Peace Prizes While Continuing To Weigh Iran Strikes

Fox News

36 minutes ago

• Fox News

Extra: A Former Hamas Hostage Returns Home. His Father Tells His Story.

Edan Alexander, an American taken hostage during the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, returned to the United States this week and was given a big welcome by his hometown of Tenafly, New Jersey, on Thursday afternoon. Edan was serving in the Israeli Defense Forces when Hamas terrorists ambushed and captured him. For 584 days, Edan was a hostage in the Gaza tunnels until he was freed on May 12th of this year. Just days before his return to the U.S., his father, Adi Alexander, joined FOX News Rundown host Dave Anthony to describe what Edan endured while he was being held captive and how difficult it was for him and his family knowing their child was in so much danger. Adi also weighed in on the multiple wars Israel is engaged in and his hopes that the remaining hostages being held by Hamas will be released. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on FOX News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire interview with Adi Alexander, allowing you to hear about Edan's harrowing story of survival and how his family never lost hope during the treacherous ordeal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

Yahoo

41 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Christina Bohannan makes third run for Iowa's 1st Congressional District

Jun. 21—History shows that just because a candidate makes multiple attempts to win an election doesn't mean they can't eventually pull through. U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks lost a number of times to Dave Loebsack before winning Iowa's 1st Congressional District seat in a close 2020 election. Now her past Democratic challenger, Christina Bohannan, is attempting the same thing for the 2026 election cycle, provided she is the favorite in the primary. On June 17, Bohannan announced her campaign to take on Miller-Meeks once again. In a press release, her campaign said Bohannan nearly defeated Miller-Meeks in 2024 — less than 800 votes decided the election — and that the Democrat "outworked, outraised and outmatched her." Bohannan said, "Mariannette Miller-Meeks has had three terms in Congress — three chances to do right by the people of Iowa. Instead, she has taken over $4 million from corporate special interests and done nothing but vote their way. And she has put partisan politics over Iowans again and again. From cutting billions of dollars from Medicaid in the Trump Administration's One Big Beautiful Bill, to siding with DOGE's cuts to Social Security and enabling unelected, unaccountable billionaires like Elon Musk, Bohannan said the Republican congresswoman has forgotten about her constituents. "It's time someone put Iowa first," Bohannan said. Bohannan went on to say Miller-Meeks needs to explain "why she keeps putting Washington special interests first." The Democratic challenger claimed Miller-Meeks supported Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, repeatedly voted for cost-increasing tariffs and is a member of the DOGE Caucus. Bohannan previously worked as an engineer and taught at the University of Iowa College of Law for 20 years. She also worked as an elected legislator for the Iowa House, defeating a 20-year incumbent in District 85. Bohannan is running for Congress because she believes in a government that works for the people. In May, another Democrat announced he would be running for Iowa's 1st Congressional District. Bob Krause, a former legislator who also tried running for U.S. Senate, announced his campaign with the slogan "Flip The House With Krause." Krause said Miller-Meeks votes "like Trump's rubber stamp." Travis Terrell, a Democrat from Johnson County, also announced his bid for Iowa's 1st Congressional District race. His campaign page on Facebook notes he is a working-class, New Deal Democrat fighting for healthcare, fair wages and a government that serves other working-class people and not billionaires. In addition to Miller-Meeks likely running for the seat, fellow Republican and former primary challenger David Pautsch announced in February that he would also be running for the seat. Pautsch touts himself as a MAGA Republican. He has been critical of Miller-Meeks, saying she is not conservative enough.