Dear Friends and Virginians:
It was a hot summer weekend just outside Nashville, Tennessee, where the Virginia Cardinals took on Wild Geese RFC in a pair of matches in the annual “Nash Bash” rugby tournament.
Each team won once. Here’s a game action shot from Saturday:
Prior to the match, I tested my lungs in an hour-long oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals on Wednesday, March 18.
What was the case about? Just another example of a legislative body trying to solve a problem — and making it worse.
In 2010, the D.C. City Council passed an anti-SLAPP Act (stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation“). The idea of the law was to protect courageous voices who challenge large corporations in public battles — and then are buried in legal fees through contrived lawsuits.
Sounds great, sign me up. Except the way the law is written has caused the exact opposite effect.
My client is a small, minority-owned contractor that installs commercial and residential electrical systems. He has no interest in politics. He just wants to bring people heat and light at an affordable price.
A few years ago, his company was subcontracted to work on a renovation project in Southeast DC. To obtain custom parts and engineering for the job, he entered a sub-sub-contract with Large Corp — which signed the deal, then proceeded to do nothing for the next 2.5 years.
In the fall of 2023, my client was at his wits’ end. He ended up using his own $$ to buy the parts and complete the work, then demanded a refund from Large Corp. In retaliation, Large Corp. sent their “Head of Safety” to the job site and wrote up a number of discrepancies (caused by its own omissions), then sent the letter to the DC Fire Marshal and General Contractor.
My client was summarily terminated and lost nearly a million dollars on the entire enterprise.
Most small businesses would write it off as a bad experience. But my client chose to file a lawsuit to hold Large Corp accountable — only to see Large Corp file its own Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit because their false report raised “public safety concerns.”
The irony is striking: one of the world’s largest corporations is claiming “anti-SLAPP” protection against a company less than 1% its size — and seeking legal fees for its trouble.
The District Court wisely denied the Motion on the grounds that Large Corp. was motivated by its own commercial interests – not public safety. So Large Corp appealed, thus delaying the litigation for a year.
In our argument last week, the Court of Appeals appeared to struggle with the “commercial motive” distinction, as if Large Corp. has an inherent right to put small companies out of business through bogus safety reports. Ugh.
If the Court rules against us, the anti-SLAPP law (at least in DC) will have become another layer of protection for large companies that can afford endless rounds of litigation. I’m sorry but that sucks.
Let’s hope the better angels prevail.
JCP Notes: After a great trip to Tennessee with Sharon, I’m headed back South next week for depositions in a case in Gwinnett County (Ga), involving a Christian university there. A very weird case, involving a fictitious academic — but maybe that’s normal these days.
Wishing everyone the best for Palm Sunday and the Easter Season. (And Happy Eid to our Islamic friends).
Peace,
Chap