Robert "Bob" King v. Specialty Hospital of Washington, et al.

The District of Columbia, like three-fifths of the States, has an “anti-SLAPP” law, D.C. Code §§ 16-5501 to 16-5505 (2012), to discourage the filing of SLAPP suits - “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participa­ tion” - and to prevent them from imposing significant litigation costs and chilling protected speech. A central feature of most anti-SLAPP laws is a special motion to dismiss, which has the prospect of truncating or avoid­ ing discovery, summary judgment, and trial. Under the D.C. law, “[tjhe court shall hold an expedited hearing on the special motion to dismiss, and issue a ruling as soon as practicable after the hearing.” § 16-5502(d). Here the court granted the motion to dismiss without holding the expedited hearing. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the mandatory expedited hearing on a special motion to dismiss under an antiSLAPP law is necessary to prevent a depriva­ tion of fundamental procedural rights.

2. Whether the courts have a heightened obliga­ tion to preserve the rights of litigants under anti-SLAPP laws where one party appears pro se.