Fat Hat, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Madison)

 circumstances, see Jacobs v. Adelson, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 44, 325 P.3d
1282, 1286-87 (2014) (adopting majority view in holding that defamatory
statements made to the media during the course of judicial proceedings
are not absolutely privileged when the media is not a party to the lawsuit
or intertwined in it), and with regard to petitioners' argument that
dismissal was mandated under the conditional reply privilege or because
the statements made to media were non-actionable opinions, petitioners
failed to demonstrate that the district court's decision to permit the
defamation cause of action to continue beyond the pleading stage was
contrary to the law or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion such
that writ relief is warranted. See id. at 1288 & n.4; Int? Game Tech., Inc.
v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558
(2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition. NRAP 21(b); Smith v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
, J.
Douglas
PARRAGUIRRE, J., concurring:
For the reasons stated in the Jacobs dissent, I disagree that
absolute privilege does not apply to statements made to the media. See
130 Nev., Adv. Op. 44, 325 P.3d 1282, 1288-89 (2014). I recognize,
however, that Jacobs is now the controlling law and I agree that
petitioners failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the district
court was otherwise mandated to dismiss the defamation cause of action
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 2
(0) 1.947A
at this stage of the litigation. I therefore concur in the disposition of this
writ petition.
—Parraguirre
claMskja6arra.
CHERRY, J., dissenting:
As recognized in the Jacobs dissent, the scope of privilege that
applies to statements made to the media is an important issue regarding
First Amendment protections. Although the Jacobs majority opinion
determined that absolute privilege does not apply to statements made to
the media, I would direct an answer and entertain this petition as
petitioners presented issues of arguable merit regarding whether the
statements made here are otherwise protected or non-actionable.
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
JK Legal & Consulting, LLC
Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
Garcia-Mendoza & Snavely, Chtd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
10) 1947A