Nevada Supreme Court, 2017

Pope v. Fellhauer

Pope v. Fellhauer
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided April 20, 2017

Pope v. Fellhauer

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TREVOR POPE, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 68673 Appellant, vs. FILED JAMES FELLHAUER; AND SHARON FELLHAUER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APR 2 0 2017 Respondents. ELIZABETH & BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY S.

DEPurf cuzlic ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND This is an appeal from an order denying a special motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.660. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; James Crockett, Judge.' Appellant Trevor Pope posted several derogatory statements about his neighbors, respondents James and Sharon Fellhauer, on the internet. As a result, the Fellhauers filed suit against Pope, claiming defamation and negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pope filed a special motion to dismiss, arguing his statements were protected under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute because they concerned issues of public interest. The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

When the district court issued its order, this court had not yet determined what constituted "an issue of public interest" for the purposes of Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. SeeS NRS 41.637(4). Since then, we have adopted California's guiding principles, as enunciated in Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 957, 968

'We have determined that oral argument is unnecessary in this matter, and we decide this appeal based on the briefs and record before this court. See NRAP 34(0(1).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e / -130(03 (N.D. Cal. 2013). See Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 6, P.3d , (2017).

As in Shapiro, here, the district court did not apply California's guiding principles in its analysis of the statements at issue.

Although the district court may ultimately come to the same conclusion, we believe the matter should be remanded so that the district court may apply the aforementioned principles in the first instance. See id. Therefore, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

CL , C.J.

J.

Gibbons

P fdc12-4A Pickering ■

cx.„„Litt:h J.

Hardesty Q 3.

Parraguirre

Stiglich SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) D47A cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge Randazza Legal Group, PLLC Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Law Office of John W. Thomson Law Offices of Clyde Dewitt Eugene Volokh Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.