Collins et al v. Laborers International Union of North America Local No 872 et al

Filing 49

ORDER Denying 16 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 7/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
5
6
7
8
9

GENE COLLINS, an individual doing business
as SOUTHERN NEVADA FLAGGERS &
BARRICADES; SIX STAR CLEANING &
CARPET SERVICE, INC., a Nevada
Corporation; YOLANDA WOODS, an
individual doing business as STEP BY STEP
CLEANING SERVICE, FLOPPY MOP, INC.,
a Nevada corporation, BLUE CHIP
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada corporation
DOES I through X; ROES I through X,

Case No. 2:11-cv-00524-LDG-LRL
ORDER

10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13
14
15

LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA LOCAL NO. 872;
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA LOCAL NO. 702;
TOMMY WHITE, an individual; DOES I
through X and ROE entities I through X,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs Gene Collins (Southern Nevada Flaggers and Barricades), Six Star Cleaning and

20

Carpet Service, Inc., Yolanda Woods (Step by Step Cleaning Service), Floppy Mop, Inc., and Blue

21

Chip Enterprises brought this action against Defendants Laborers International Union of North

22

America Local No. 872 and Tommy White. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages

23

based on allegations of defamation, breach of contract, and civil rights violations. Defendants have

24

filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Nevada’s Anti-Slapp statute. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §

25

41.660.

26

1

Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP statute provides a remedy for defendants faced with “Strategic

2

Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” See id. § 41.350-41.670. “A person who engages in good

3

faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition is immune from civil liability for claims

4

based upon the communication.” Id. § 41.650. In relevant part, good faith communication in

5

furtherance of the right to petition is defined as any “[w]ritten or oral statement made in direct

6

connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any

7

other official proceeding authorized by law, which is truthful or is made without knowledge of its

8

falsehood.” Id. § 41.637(3). Moreover, “the anti-SLAPP statute only protects citizens who petition

9

the government from civil liability arising from good-faith communications to a government

10

agency.” John v. Douglass Cnty. Sch. Dist., 219 P.3d 1276, 1281 (Nev. 2009) (emphasis in

11

original) cert denied, 130 S.Ct. 3355 (2010); see also Buckwalter v. Wey, No. 2:10-CV-108 JCM

12

(LRL), 2010 WL 2609100 (D. Nev. June 24, 2010).

13

A person who is sued based upon good faith communications in furtherance of the right to

14

petition may file a special motion to dismiss. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.669. The court is to treat the

15

special motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Id. § 41.660(3). Since the special

16

motion to dismiss is procedurally treated as a summary judgment, summary judgment standards

17

apply. See Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 219 P.3d at 1281 (applying Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure

18

regarding summary judgment); see also Balestra-Leigh v. Balestra, No. 3:09-CV-551-ECR-RAM,

19

2010 WL 4280424, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2010). The moving party must thus present sufficient

20

evidence to make a threshold showing that the lawsuit is based on good faith communication in

21

furtherance of the right to petition the government. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.660(1); see also

22

Balestra-Leigh, 2010 WL 4280424, at *4.

23

Defendants have failed to make a threshold showing that Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP statute

24

applies to this case. Defendants’ motion makes clear that prior litigation was brought by the union

25

trust fund and not Defendants. Thus, the statute protects the trust fund and not Defendants.

26
2

1

Further, the alleged communication was between Defendants and Plaintiffs, union employers, and

2

union clients. The alleged communication, therefore, did not arise from good faith

3

communications to a government agency in furtherance of the right to petition. Accordingly,

4

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS the Defendant’s motion to strike (#16, Opp'n #38,

5

Reply #44) is DENIED.

6
7
DATED this _____ day of July, 2011.
8
9
10

______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3