In a closely watched decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law – the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 – can be applied in federal court under certain circumstances. The case, Paucek v. Shaulis, involved defamation-adjacent claims based on online criticisms of a business. The defendant moved to dismiss under the NJ SLAPP statute, prompting a deep dive into the Erie doctrine, federal procedure, and the substantive-versus-procedural divide.

Plaintiffs argued that the NJ SLAPP law conflicted with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore could not be invoked in federal court. But the court carefully parsed UPEPA’s provisions and concluded that some parts – particularly its mandatory fee-shifting for successful SLAPP defenses in line with Federal Rules 12 or 56 – are substantive and survive Erie. While the court agreed that UPEPA’s prima facie dismissal standard conflicts with the Federal Rules and is inapplicable in federal court, it found that the fee-shifting provisions tied to Rule 12 and 56 dismissals remain enforceable. This interpretation bolsters the utility of the NJ SLAPP statute for federal defendants seeking to protect their speech.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment for anti-SLAPP jurisprudence in New Jersey. It affirms that defendants in federal court can still invoke the NJ SLAPP statute to recover fees and costs when fending off lawsuits meant to chill their First Amendment rights. With SLAPP suits increasingly used as tools of intimidation, the court’s recognition of NJ SLAPP protections at the federal level is a win for free expression. Counsel defending defamation, tortious interference, and other reputational claims in New Jersey should consider early NJ SLAPP motions as part of their strategy – in both state and federal venues.