New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek

The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts.
Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC.
Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information.
Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA.
All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review.
The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court.
The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold.
First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue.
Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things.
This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue.
The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court.
To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion.
So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict.
Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine.
This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature?
Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural.
But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature.
The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation.
Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim.
The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article.
ANALYSIS
Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere).
But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

13 minutes ago

• CBS News

Consignment shop in Massachusetts gives children's clothes and toys a second life

A children's consignment shop in Holliston, Massachusetts is doing more than just selling nice clothing and toys, as they help others in need and give items a second life. "Secondhand doesn't have to mean that it looks secondhand, right, so that's the beauty of it," said Caitlin Shannon, owner of Fiddle and Find in Holliston. Shannon spent a decade as a nurse in pediatrics and labor and delivery. But a year ago, she left the career she loved to follow a different passion, taking a leap of faith and opening Fiddle and Find. Consignment shop for children's clothes and toys "I've dreamed of owning my own small business, sustainable business," said Shannon. "It's really important to be conscious of our clothing consumption and sustainability and remaining eco-friendly but it doesn't have to be what you initially think it is. Here we curate all the items, we want to sell like new clothing to people and also explain how it can be good for the environment and their wallet." If you want to sell a product, you make an appointment at the store. Shannon closely examines it and decides whether or not she wants to put it on her shelves. "Our biggest thing is just making sure there's no stains, no frays, no rips, no tears, the condition is like new and it's current," said Shannon. If your item sells, you receive a portion of the profit. If it doesn't, the product is donated to Project Just Because in Hopkinton, a nonprofit that provides basic necessities to families in need. "We're keeping clothes out of landfills" "That way, we're keeping clothes out of landfills, everything is getting upcycled," said Shannon. According to Smart Asset, Massachusetts is the most expensive state in the country to raise a child. For a lot of families, every dollar counts and shopping secondhand can help. "I think it's the future," said Shannon. "I think it's the smart way to go and you don't have to sacrifice anything." Fiddle and Find sells clothing from infant to young adult, along with bikes, books, toys and sports gear, including clothing for horseback riding and dance classes. Shannon said she's happy she took the chance on a new career that still connects her with kids and families every day. "It's been a whirlwind but also felt like this giant hug," said Shannon. "I think I am shocked about the outpouring of support from the community."

CBS News

17 minutes ago

• CBS News

Man arrested after fatal shooting at Utah "No Kings" rally released as probe continues

A man accused of brandishing a rifle at a "No Kings" rally in Salt Lake City that led to the accidental shooting of a protester was released from jail while the investigation continues. Salt Lake District Attorney Sim Gill's office said Friday that it was unable to decide on charges against Arturo Gamboa, who had been jailed on suspicion of murder following the June 14 shooting. Gamboa, 24, was taken into custody after he brought an assault-style rifle to the rally and was allegedly moving toward the crowd with the weapon raised, Salt Lake City police said. An armed safety volunteer for the event fired three shots, wounding Gamboa and killing a nearby demonstrator, Arthur Folasa Ah Loo. According to arrest documents, two designated peacekeepers saw Gamboa separating from the crowd, moving behind a wall, and pulling out a rifle, CBS affiliate KUTV reported. Gamboa did not fire his rifle, and it is unclear what he intended to do with it. A young man pays his respects to Arthur Folasa Ah Loo at a makeshift memorial in Salt Lake City, on the block where Ah Loo was fatally shot during a "No Kings" protest. Hannah Schoenbaum / AP Police said the day after the shooting that witnesses reported seeing Gamboa lift the rifle when he was ordered to drop it and that instead he began running toward the crowd. He fled after the shooting but was arrested nearby and accused of creating the dangerous situation that led to Ah Loo's death. Salt Lake City police said in a statement the next day that Gamboa "knowingly engaged in conduct ... that ultimately caused the death of an innocent community member." Three days after Gamboa was booked into jail, police issued a public appeal for any video footage related to the shooting or Gamboa. They said detectives were still trying "to piece together exactly what happened." His father, Albert Gamboa, told the Associated Press last week that his son was "an innocent guy" who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time." Utah is an open-carry state, meaning people who can legally own a firearm are generally allowed to carry it on a public street. The volunteer has not been publicly identified as investigators have worked to determine who was at fault. Judge James Blanch said in the release order that Gamboa must live with his father and is forbidden from possessing firearms. The conditions terminate after two months or if criminal charges against him are pursued, Blanch wrote. Gamboa's attorney, Greg Skordas, did not immediately respond to the AP's telephone message left for him seeking comment. Protest organizers have not said whether or how the safety volunteer who shot Ah Loo was trained or explained why he was armed. All attendees, including those in safety roles, were asked not to bring weapons, according to Sarah Parker, a national coordinator for the 50501 Movement. Parker's organization on Thursday said it was disassociating from a local chapter of the group that helped organize the Utah protest. Arthur Ah Loo on season 17 of "Project Runway." Miller Mobley/Bravo/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images Ah Loo, 39, was a successful fashion designer who appeared on "Project Runway." The "No Kings" demonstration involving some 18,000 people was otherwise peaceful. It was one of hundreds nationwide against President Trump's military parade in Washington, which marked the Army's 250th anniversary and coincided with Mr. Trump's birthday.

Associated Press

22 minutes ago

• Associated Press

This Date in Baseball - Pete Rose gets his 3,772nd hit, passing Hank Aaron for 2nd place all-time

June 22 1925 — The Pittsburgh Pirates beat the St. Louis Cardinals 24-6 with Kiki Cuyler and Pie Traynor each hitting a grand slam and Max Carey getting two hits in the first and eighth innings. 1930 — Lou Gehrig hit three home runs to lead the New York Yankees to a 20-13 victory over the Philadelphia Athletics in the second game of a doubleheader. Babe Ruth, who hit three homers in the nightcap the previous day, hit two homers in the opener and one in the nightcap for the Yankees. Ruth tied major league records for five homers in two games and six homers in three games. 1944 — Jim Tobin of the Boston Braves threw a five-inning 7-0 no-hitter in the second game of a doubleheader against the Philadelphia Phillies. 1947 — Cincinnati's Ewell Blackwell almost duplicated Johnny Vander Meer's double no-hit record by following up his June 18 gem over Boston. Brooklyn's Eddie Stanky singled with one out in the ninth to end Blackwell's bid. Blackwell ended up with a 4-0 two-hitter. 1962 — Baltimore Orioles first baseman Boog Powell became the first batter to hit a home run over the center-field hedge at Memorial Stadium. The 469-foot clout came off Don Schwall of the Boston Red Sox. 1982 — Philadelphia's Pete Rose doubled off St. Louis pitcher John Stuper in the third inning to move into second place on the career hit list. Rose moved ahead of Hank Aaron with hit No. 3,772. 1994 — Ken Griffey Jr. hit his 31st home run of the season in Seattle's 12-3 victory at California, breaking Babe Ruth's record for most homers before the end of June. Ruth needed 63 games to reach 30 homers in 1928 and 68 games in 1930. Griffey did it in the Mariners' 70th game. 1997 — The Atlanta Braves, behind a four-homer, nine-run third, beat the Philadelphia Phillies 12-5. Chipper Jones, Fred McGriff, Michael Tucker and Jeff Blauser homered in the inning. 2002 — The Detroit Tigers ended Luis Castillo's 35-game hitting streak. Castillo went 0-for-4 and was left on deck when the Florida Marlins finished off a four-run, ninth-inning rally to beat the Tigers 5-4. 2007 — Miguel Tejada goes on the disabled list with a wrist injury, ending a run of 1,152 consecutive games played, the fifth-longest run in major league history. 2010 — Jamie Moyer serves up the 505th home run of his major league career, to Russell Branyan, in a 2 - 1 win over the Indians. Moyer ties Robin Roberts for the most homers surrendered in the majors. 2013 — Francisco Rodriguez earned his 300th career save, finishing off Milwaukee's second straight 2-0 victory over slumping Atlanta. 2015 — ESPN reveals it has obtained a copy of a notebook belonging to Pete Rose which contains evidence of regular betting on baseball games during the 1986 season. The notebook was seized during a police raid on one of Rose's associates in 1989, after Rose was banned from baseball by Commissioner Bart Giamatti, and had been under court-ordered seal since. Its content corroborate the contents of the Dowd Report, which led to Rose's suspension, and make it even less likely that current Commissioner Rob Manfred will reverse it, as Rose has pleaded for him to do. 2020 — MLB owners agree unanimously on a plan for a 60-game season beginning around July 24th - if everyone signs off on health and safety protocols. 2021 — The Arizona Diamondbacks snap their franchise record 17-game losing streak with a 5-1 win over the Milwaukee Brewers. 2022 — One day after setting a personal best as a hitter with 8 RBIs, Shohei Ohtani sets another one on the mound as he racks up 13 strikeouts in 8 scoreless innings in a 5 - 0 win over Kansas City. _____