White Pine Recall organizers James Adams, Cheryl Noriega and Tim McGowan could find themselves the recipients of a rather large financial windfall following their court victory over the two commissioners they tried to oust and who in turn sued them for slander.
Last week Senior Nevada Judge Charles Thompson threw out Lampros case altogether but kept parts of Lemich’s claims legally alive at least for the time being.
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.
But while Thompson settled one issue the ruling raise another, just how much would either Lampros and Lemich have to pay for erstwhile efforts. And the three recall organizers’ attorney Jeff Dickerson and Julie Cavanaugh-Bill are gunning for retribution.
“The judge did a yeoman’s job on what we consider to be precedent-setting opinions under the statute.” Dickerson said. “I handled the John v. Douglas County School District case, and Julie and I view these orders as demonstrating the power of the anti-SLAPP statute in protecting First Amendment rights, which is all it was designed to do. Exercising those rights was all our clients were trying to do. Sometimes it’s good to know that the system works.
Although the door to the courthouse is left open for re-filing one of the claims, we don’t think that is the same thing as an invitation. There is a difference. It might be wise for the plaintiff’s team to look up before walking back in, because the rafters are creaking.
The persons who filed these lawsuits against our clients will be responsible for our clients’ attorneys fees and costs, which we presently estimate at $30,000.00. Then the statute allows a penalty of $10,000.00. We read this to apply to each claim, which would bring their liability on these two cases into the six figures. There are other avenues by which the Court could impose additional monetary sanctions, such as the Court’s inherent power to prevent vexatious lawsuits. We are weighing these options moving forward.”
Both Dickerson and Cavanaugh-Bill remarked that the case could be precedent setting in Nevada.
“Anti-SLAPP laws are either new or have been revamped,” Dickerson said. “Mostly this was done to prevent corporations and government from intimidating free speech on the internet. It is ironic that one of the first cases of these protections came about from the old fashioned filing of a recall petition.”
And if precedent is to be set Thompson by his record appears well prepared to set it.
According to recent cases Thompson is neither afraid to break precedent not to set new ones and he often rules for the underdog.
In 2008 he ruled in favor of then Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinch and order the dark horse candidate be allowed to participate in the presidential debate against the wishes of political heavy weights Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
More recently in 2012 Thompson Clark District Attorney Steve Wolfson from prosecuting a felony drunken driving case after finding “that a true and extreme conflict of interest exists” between Wolfson and the defendant, a former client.
