The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court properly applied Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes. The Court held that the district court appropriately granted the motion to dismiss because, under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, the defendants satisfied the statute’s first and second prongs. The Court also held that under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, the defendants were properly awarded attorney fees and costs, and an additional $10,000 for prevailing on an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss.
Bathke, Brady, "Smith v. Zilverberg, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Mar. 4, 2021)" (2021). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1389.