'Completely fails': Central Park Five say Trump's attorney cited the wrong law in effort to dismiss defamation case
Source: Law & Crime
Nov 23rd, 2024, 11:20 am
The Central Park Five say President-elect Donald Trump is wrong on the law as he seeks to dismiss their defamation lawsuit against him over comments made during the presidential debate earlier this year.
In a letter motion filed in a Pennsylvania federal court on Friday, attorneys for the famously falsely-accused quintet said they intend to oppose Defendants forthcoming Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
On Nov. 20, Trump requested a conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim under the federal rules and the Keystone States anti-SLAPP statute a state law that bars actions intended to chill free speech. Many states refer to such litigation as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) and have created an easy vehicle to dismiss them at the outset.
Attorneys for the Central Park Five, however, say Trumps attorney incorrectly invoked the anti-SLAPP law. Defendant invokes Pennsylvanias anti-SLAPP statute, the motion reads. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet spoken on this issue, district courts within the Third Circuit have concluded that state anti-SLAPP statutes do not apply in federal court.
Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/completely-fails-central-park-five-say-trumps-attorney-cited-the-wrong-law-in-effort-to-dismiss-defamation-case-insist-debate-comments-were-fabricated-from-whole-cloth/
Full headline: Completely fails: Central Park Five say Trumps attorney cited the wrong law in effort to dismiss defamation case, insist debate comments were fabricated from whole cloth
Link to LETTER MOTION (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.628885/gov.uscourts.paed.628885.23.0.pdf
mahatmakanejeeves
(62,014 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(156,305 posts)onenote
(44,863 posts)The plaintiff's counsel never says that Trump's attorney "cited the wrong law". Rather they suggest that other district courts in Pennsylvania have held that anti-SLAPP laws can't be applied in federal court cases, but also acknowledge that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet spoken on the issue. Which means that this district court is not bound to follow the other district courts.
Indeed, the appeals courts that have addressed the issue are divided. The first, second, and ninth court of appeals have ruled that state anti-SLAPP laws can be applied in federal court cases. The 5th, 10th, 11th and DC Circuits have held anti-SLAPP laws cannot be applied in federal court. Under the circumstances, there was nothing "wrong" in arguing that the anti-SLAPP law applies in this case, although I would hope the court follows the cases that have held it is not applicable.