The Court held that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes do not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial because the district court does not engage in any fact-finding. Under prong one of the two-prong test, the district court does not engage in any fact finding involving the plaintiff’s claim and cannot defeat a plaintiff’s claim. Similarly, under prong two, the district court does not engage in fact finding, but instead considers whether the plaintiff’s claim is legally sufficient. Therefore, the Court concluded that the two-prong test is very similar to summary judgement because it allows district courts to dismiss claims that will not reasonably succeed.
Russell, Alexandra, "Taylor v. Colon, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 30, 2020)" (2020). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1327.