User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions
test chunked v2 |
test chunked v2 |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
'''The downside for Dragonfly.''' If Prowse wins the motion, the court must award him reasonable costs and attorney's fees, may award up to $10,000 on top of that, and a denial is immediately appealable, which keeps the discovery stay in place during the appeal.<ref name="nrs41670">Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.670. {{Cite web |url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html |title=NRS Chapter 41 |publisher=Nevada Legislature |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref><ref name="john">''John v. Douglas County School District'', 125 Nev. 746, 219 P.3d 1276 (2009).</ref> | '''The downside for Dragonfly.''' If Prowse wins the motion, the court must award him reasonable costs and attorney's fees, may award up to $10,000 on top of that, and a denial is immediately appealable, which keeps the discovery stay in place during the appeal.<ref name="nrs41670">Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.670. {{Cite web |url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html |title=NRS Chapter 41 |publisher=Nevada Legislature |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref><ref name="john">''John v. Douglas County School District'', 125 Nev. 746, 219 P.3d 1276 (2009).</ref> | ||
'''A battery review is an issue of public interest.''' Nevada uses the guiding principles in ''Shapiro v. Welt'' to decide that question, asking among other things whether the subject concerns a substantial number of people rather than a purely personal grievance.<ref name="shapiro">''Shapiro v. Welt'', 133 Nev. 35, 389 P.3d 262 (2017). [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2017/67363.html Opinion via Justia].</ref> Dragonfly's own marketing answers it: the company states it has deployed more than 400,000 batteries across RV, marine, off-grid, and heavy-duty applications.<ref name="complaint" /> Online consumer reviews get the same treatment in the case law, because ''"consumer information that goes beyond a particular interaction between the parties and implicates matters of public concern that can affect many people is generally deemed to involve an issue of public interest."''<ref name="wong">''Wong v. Jing'', 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1366, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747 (2010). [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5809824/wong-v-jing/ Opinion via CourtListener].</ref><ref name="chaker">''Chaker v. Mateo'', 209 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1146, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496 (2012). [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=chaker+v+mateo Opinion via Google Scholar].</ref> | |||
'''Meeting prong one.''' Prowse's initial showing can be made largely by his own sworn declaration laying out his methodology and stating that he believed his conclusions were true when he published, which Nevada case law treats as sufficient at prong one absent conflicting evidence.<ref name="stark">''Stark v. Lackey'', 136 Nev. 38, 458 P.3d 342 (2020). [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2020/74449.html Opinion via Justia].</ref> | |||
== The trade libel claim has built-in weak points == | |||
By suing for trade libel rather than personal defamation, Dragonfly took on a heavier burden. Nevada business disparagement requires a false and disparaging statement, unprivileged publication, malice, and special damages.<ref name="ccsd">''Clark County School District v. Virtual Education Software, Inc.'', 125 Nev. 374, 385-87, 213 P.3d 496 (2009). [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/1290127.html Opinion via FindLaw].</ref> | |||