Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9459310" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Three things-1. Abuse of process is a specific tort action; I don't think it applies here.2. You can ask for sanctions (or the court can sua sponte order them) under FRAP 38 for frivolous appeals. But ... the bar is so high for frivolous appeals, that this doesn't cut it. It's a terrible brief, but not a frivolous appeal. IMO.3. On the anti-SLAPP. Anti-SLAPP laws are specific, and the district court made a finding on that (which was not appealed) so that, as a matter of law now in this action, the anti-SLAPP law doesn't apply.But to get into the weeds a little. This is a case in federal court, but it's there on diversity  (the parties are from different states and there is a significant amount in controversy). This means that the federal court is applying state substantive law (New York law).Now, there is a whole bunch of complicated law that dates back to something called Erie (Erie RR Co. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)) that means that federal courts apply state substantive law, and federal procedural law. As the District Court explained, there is an emerging consensus in the federal courts in New York that the anti-SLAPP law of New York (which is a substantive law) has a provision that conflicts with the procedural requirements of federal law- so you can't apply that substantive law in federal court to dismiss a claim because of the conflict. To explain further requires really nerdy stuff that people who take Federal Courts love, but everyone else is just like, "Wut?"</blockquote>

Verification