The much anticipated ruling on the slander suit against the three recall organizers of White Pine county commissioners John Lampros and Mike Lemich had something for everyone, except John Lampros.
In his ruling filed Wednesday Senior District Judge Charles Thompson threw out Lampros case altogether but kept parts of Lemich’s claims legally alive at least for the time being.
click link for ruling: ruling
This summer White Pine county residents James Adams, Cheryl Noriega and Tim McGowan filed a notice of recall against both Lemich and Lampros. Two weeks later Lampros and Lemich filed defamation suits claiming that the allegations in the recall petitions were in fact lies and that slander had damaged them financially and politically.
In response to the defamation suit the three asked the Judge to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they were so called SLAPP actions.
As defined by the Nevada Bar Association: A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit, is abusive litigation where a plaintiff brings a legally questionable claim in order to punish the defendant for exercising his or her First Amendment rights. Often, these suits are based upon defamation and other claims arising from expressive conduct. The purpose of a SLAPP suit is not necessarily to win, but to inflict the punishment of litigation itself.
In his ruling Thompson agreed that the entire defamation suit filed by Lampros did indeed fall into the category of a SLAPP suit.
More than just putting an end to his defamation suit, Lampros could find himself liable not only for the legal cost of the defendants but also for a bevy of fines.
Again according to the Nevada Bar Association: “An inherent characteristic of anti-SLAPP statutes is the award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing movant. This mechanism serves to encourage attorneys to file meritorious anti-SLAPP motions that might not otherwise be filed, and to incentivize the protection of the First Amendment. In addition to allowing for a movant’s recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees, (the recently passed new law) SB 286’s change to NRS 41.670 gives the court discretion to award a successful movant up to $10,000 in addition to his or her reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. This discourages questionable attempts to silence successful movants’ First Amendment rights.
In other words depending on Thompson’s discretion Lampros could face a fine of $30,000 ( $10,000 for each defendant) plus their legal costs.
But while Lampros may find himself poorer Lemich case is different.
In a separate ruling Thompson agreed with the defendants that three of Lemich’s claims to slander did indeed meet the definition of a SLAPP suit.
However the judge also rule that four did not.
It is important to note the Thompson did not rule on the veracity of Lemich’s claims that he was slandered, only that four of the allegations were not on the face obviously false or that the defendants made them in bad faith. That determination the judge pointed out may be for a jury to decide.
Specifically Thompson separated his ruling to each allegation:
The found that the charge that Lemich was slandered “for a financial disaster in the White Pine County budget and that his “mismanagement was responsible for White Pine County’s financial difficulties” Thompson dismissed as SLAPP’s. Thompson also found that Lemich claims to slander over intimidation and threatening citizens as well as being ‘investigated’ for assault were also SLAPP’s.
However the judge ruled that the claim Lemich was under investigation for theft did not meet the SLAPP definition and that it would not be dismissed at least in regards to the SLAPP motion.
He also ruled that the allegations of slander regarding the Dismantling of the County Fire and EMS services was a SLAPP suit and thus dismissed. However the judge refused to dismiss the slander charges on the allegations that Lemich caused the county commission to commit violations of state statutes.
In addition Thompson refused to dismiss slander charges regarding the Lemich had a conflict of interest regarding the county land exchange with Midway Gold and that he had a vendetta against the Ely Airport. On of the three defendants in the suit James Adams is the manager of the airport.
With the mixed ruling the defendants can either appeal or they can seek dismissal on other grounds besides claiming SLAPP.
If not dismissed or settled out of court the case could even go to trial. However as a public figure Lemich is at a distinct disadvantage than if he were a private citizen. He would have to prove to a jury that not only were the allegations made against him were false but that the defendants knew they were false and published them with the purpose to harm him.
And with the SLAPP dismissal of three allegations the county commissioner depending on Thompson’s discretion could also be fined.
See what happens when you try and intimidate people