On May 29, 2025, the New Jersey Court of Appeals reversed dismissal in Satz v. Starr, No. A-2785-23, 2025 WL 1522032 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 29, 2025), holding that the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of his claims did not preclude the defendants from seeking counsel fees and costs under New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49. While precedent in New Jersey, this decision can be looked to as persuasive authority in other UPEPA jurisdictions that a plaintiff cannot avoid liability under UPEPA simply by voluntarily dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff, Allen Satz, brought a suit against the Jewish Link, Organization For The Resolution Of Agunot, Keshet Starr, Beis Medrash, and Rabbi Neal Turk after they circulated a flyer in the Jewish Link, a Jewish newspaper, encouraging Satz to grant his wife a religious divorce. Id at *1. Satz alleged there was an unflattering picture of him in the flyer and that the flyer called for a protest outside his parents’ home. Id.
The defendants argued that Satz was targeting their First Amendment rights; therefore, the complaint was subject to dismissal under UPEPA. Id. The defendants’ reply brief included an order to show cause, seeking attorney’s fees and costs under UPEPA. Id. Satz voluntarily dismissed his complaint. Id. The defendants asked the trial court to reopen the case for the limited purpose of ruling on their motion for relief and order to show cause under UPEPA. Id at *2. The trial court denied their motion because they had not answered the complaint (even though they had had the opportunity to answer). Id.
The defendants appealed this decision, arguing that their motion should have been granted because there is a strong public interest in ensuring that a plaintiff can’t just dismiss its complaint to avoid liability under UPEPA. Id. The defendants asserted that by allowing the trial court’s decision to stand, the Court of Appeals would create a loophole in UPEPA that would allow other litigants to bring similar suits to punish public participation. Id.
In a decision delivered by Appellate Judge Hany Mawla, the New Jersey Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case, directing the trial court to hear the defendants’ order to show cause according to the UPEPA procedures. Id at *5. The court held that allowing the trial court’s ruling to stand would “contravene legislative intent and create a loophole in the UPEPA allowing SLAPP plaintiffs to financially harm New Jersey residents who are the subject of their lawsuits and then strategically dismiss their suits.” Id. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court misapplied New Jersey law and that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-51 does not require a defendant to have filed an answer before moving to dismiss a complaint. Id at *4. The Court of Appeals also ruled, contrary to the trial court’s reasoning that the defendants could file a separate suit for fees, that UPEPA contemplates applications for fees and costs to be heard on orders to show cause. Id. Since the Uniform Law Commission adopted UPEPA on July 15, 2020, 13 states have enacted some version of UPEPA as their anti-SLAPP law: Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington.[1] The Satz decision likely will be cited all over the country as support for protecting the intent of UPEPA and protecting defendants from groundless lawsuits brought to curtail free speech. Every year more states adopt UPEPA, so the Satz decision’s importance will only grow as time goes on.
[1] Public Expression Protection Act, Uniform Law Commission, last visited June 4, 2025, https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?communitykey=4f486460-199c-49d7-9fac-05570be1e7b1.