Obtained anti-SLAPP dismissal of a suit filed by a defamation plaintiff who responded to losing a prior defamation suit by re-suing the defendants from the prior case, as well as their counsel, for alleged fraud on the court because they presented a legal argument with which the plaintiff disagreed.

The court explained that the suit was procedurally barred because Florida’s fraud-on-the-court provision, Civil Rule 1.540, required the plaintiff to file a timely motion within the same court in which the alleged fraud occurred, yet the plaintiff had filed an untimely new suit before another court. The court further held that the claim was substantively baseless—in that no fraud occurred—and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the findings of the prior defamation suit. The court finally determined that the case violated Florida’s anti-SLAPP law because the plaintiff filed suit in retaliation against the defendants for their constitutionally protected activity of defending themselves in court.

Klayman v. Portfolio Media, Inc., Case No. 50-2024-CA-010447 (15th Jud. Cir. 2024).