Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Rhode Island

2013He argues that such conduct is protected under this Court’s adoption of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the context of common-law tort claims. 14 See Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.1996) (quoting Pound Hill Corp. v. Perl, 668 A.2d 1260, 1263 (R.I.1996) (“Although the [Noerr-Pennington ] doctrine arose in a context of application of the antitrust statutes, it is based upon the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”)).

2013He argues that such conduct is protected under this Court’s adoption of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the context of common-law tort claims. 14 See Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.1996) (quoting Pound Hill Corp. v. Perl, 668 A.2d 1260, 1263 (R.I.1996) (“Although the [Noerr-Pennington ] doctrine arose in a context of application of the antitrust statutes, it is based upon the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”)).

2013He argues that such conduct is protected under this Court’s adoption of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the context of common-law tort claims. 14 See Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.1996) (quoting Pound Hill Corp. v. Perl, 668 A.2d 1260, 1263 (R.I.1996) (“Although the [Noerr-Pennington ] doctrine arose in a context of application of the antitrust statutes, it is based upon the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”)).

2013He argues that such conduct is protected under this Court’s adoption of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the context of common-law tort claims. 14 See Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.1996) (quoting Pound Hill Corp. v. Perl, 668 A.2d 1260, 1263 (R.I.1996) (“Although the [Noerr-Pennington ] doctrine arose in a context of application of the antitrust statutes, it is based upon the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”)).

2015Black’s Law Dictionary at 1209; see also Cove Road Development v. Western Cranston Industrial Park Associates, 674 A.2d 1234, 1237-39 (R.I. 1996) (discussing the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in detail). -3- I Facts and Travel The passing of the Financial Stability Act and the appointment of a Receiver for Central Falls has garnered much coverage in the press and much attention from the Rhode Island courts.5 In fact, this Court has already had occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the Financial Stability Act, holding that the Act is constitutional.

2015Black’s Law Dictionary at 1209; see also Cove Road Development v. Western Cranston Industrial Park Associates, 674 A.2d 1234, 1237-39 (R.I. 1996) (discussing the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in detail). -3- I Facts and Travel The passing of the Financial Stability Act and the appointment of a Receiver for Central Falls has garnered much coverage in the press and much attention from the Rhode Island courts.5 In fact, this Court has already had occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the Financial Stability Act, holding that the Act is constitutional.

2013"The United States Supreme Court developed the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the context of antitrust litigation in order to protect the legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to petition the government after retributive civil claims were brought by parties harmed by petitioning activity.” Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.1996) (citing Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 56 , 113 S.Ct. 1920 , 123 L.Ed.2d 611 (1993)). 15 .

2013"The United States Supreme Court developed the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in the context of antitrust litigation in order to protect the legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to petition the government after retributive civil claims were brought by parties harmed by petitioning activity.” Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.1996) (citing Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 56 , 113 S.Ct. 1920 , 123 L.Ed.2d 611 (1993)). 15 .

2015The hearing justice concluded that portion of his analysis with a finding that “Mayor Moreau and the City Council’s retention of counsel and pursuit of the instant litigation—despite the Receiver’s admonitions—were intentional and in derogation of the Receiver’s superior and superseding authority.” Turning next to address the Appellants’ invocation of the Anti-SLAPP statute and the “Noerr-Pennington doctrine” as constituting a “shield from liability,” the hearing justice found that the Anti-SLAPP statute and the “Noerr-Pennington doctrine” were not applicable to the instant cases.8 He went on

2011Enacted in 1993, Rhode Island's Anti-SLAPP Statute was "intended to emulate the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine by providing conditional immunity to any person exercising his or her right of petition or free speech under the United States or Rhode Island Constitution concerning matters of public concern." See Global Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Mallette , 762 A.2d 1208 , 1210-11 (R.I. 2000); *Page 17 Hometown Props., Inc. 680 A.2d at 60-61 (noting that "[l]ike the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the [A]nti-SLAPP [S]tatute was adopted in order to protect valid petitioning activities"); see also United

2011Enacted in 1993, Rhode Island's Anti-SLAPP Statute was "intended to emulate the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine by providing conditional immunity to any person exercising his or her right of petition or free speech under the United States or Rhode Island Constitution concerning matters of public concern." See Global Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Mallette , 762 A.2d 1208 , 1210-11 (R.I. 2000); *Page 17 Hometown Props., Inc. 680 A.2d at 60-61 (noting that "[l]ike the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the [A]nti-SLAPP [S]tatute was adopted in order to protect valid petitioning activities"); see also United

2011Enacted in 1993, Rhode Island's Anti-SLAPP Statute was "intended to emulate the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine by providing conditional immunity to any person exercising his or her right of petition or free speech under the United States or Rhode Island Constitution concerning matters of public concern." See Global Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Mallette , 762 A.2d 1208 , 1210-11 (R.I. 2000); *Page 17 Hometown Props., Inc. 680 A.2d at 60-61 (noting that "[l]ike the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the [A]nti-SLAPP [S]tatute was adopted in order to protect valid petitioning activities"); see also United

2015See Grady v. Narragansett Electric Co., 962 A.2d 34 , 42 n. 4 (R.I. 2009) (referencing “our usual policy of not opining with respect to issues about which we need not opine”). 13 We note that the Appellants argue before this Court that both the Mayor and the City Council are entitled to indemnification under G.L. 1956 § 45-15-16 and the City Ordinance.

2015See Moreau v. Flanders, 15 A.3d 565 (R.I. 2011).

2015See Moreau v. Flanders, 15 A.3d 565 (R.I. 2011).

1996In California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 511 , 92 S.Ct. 609, 612 , 30 L.Ed.2d 642, 646 (1972), the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “sham” exception to constitutional immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

1996In California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 511 , 92 S.Ct. 609, 612 , 30 L.Ed.2d 642, 646 (1972), the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “sham” exception to constitutional immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.