UPDATE: City Paper Tries to "SLAPP" Away Redskins' Owner's Libel Suit

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeThe Washington CityPaper last week filed a motion to dismiss Washington Redskins' owner Dan Snyder's defamation suit against it (see "TUOL" posts 4/27/11, 2/3/11), according to The Washington Post.

Snyder sued the paper and its parent, Atalaya Capital Management LP, in February 2011, regarding an unflattering portrayal of the owner entitled "The Cranky Redskins Fans Guide to Dan Snyder," written by defendant Dave McKenna that was published in November 2010. The CityPaper's motion to dismiss filed in Superior Court relies on The District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010 [D.C. Law 18-0351], enacted by Congress, which also stays Snyder's discovery against the defendants.

Anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") measures are intended to deflect litigation aimed at intimidating and silencing critics concerning matters of public concern through the threat of costly lawsuits. The CityPaper claims a letter from Snyder's counsel to Atalaya in November 2010, that demanded an apology and retraction and addressed the prospect of legal action supports the anti-SLAPP argument.

UPDATE: Redskins Owner Strategy: Re-file Libel Suit; Boost Money-Throwing Game

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeWashington Redskins owner Dan Snyder has returned from the proverbial drawing board with a refurbished defamation lawsuit against the Washington City Paper (see "TUOL" post 2/3/11) for an unflattering portrayal of him in a November 19, 2009, article entitled: "The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder," according to The Washington Post.

The all-new, if not improved, lawsuit drops hedge fund Atalaya Capital Management LP, owner of the Washington City Paper and Creative Loafing, as a defendant, but adds the author of the article at issue, Dave McKenna, a much shallower pocket than the money fund, to be sure.  The re-filed complaint also shifts its emphasis from alleged anti-Semetic remarks by the article to claims by Snyder that the article contains false, malicious statements that held him up to ridicule in the business community and among Redskins fans, already impatient with the team's 6-10 showing in 2010.

In his original suit, Snyder sought $2 million in damages from the City Paper  for allegations in the article he deemed libelous, such as that he forged names as a telemarketer for Snyder Communications and was tossed from the board of directors of Six Flags Entertainment Corp.

Is it possible to lock-out an NFL owner from the courtroom?

Redskins' Thin-Skinned Owner Sues Weekly for Libel

Image via WikipediaDissatisfied with his portrayal in a November 19, 2009, profile in the weekly Washington City Paper entitled The Cranky Redskin Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder, and having time on his hands because his team isn't playing in this weekend's Super Bowl for a nineteenth consecutive year, Dan Snyder has found an outlet for his competitive juices in the New York Supreme Court.

In Daniel M. Snyder v.  Atalaya Capital Management LP et al (Index No. 150015/2011), Snyder is seeking $2 million in general damages in a two-count complaint alleging defamation against the City Paper. Snyder, who ponied up $800 million to acquire the 'Skins in 1999, alleges the unflattering article was replete with libelous statements, including that he was caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications, that he purportedly boasted his wealth was amassed from diabetes and cancer victims, and that he was ousted from the board of directors of Six Flags Entertainment Corp. amusement park chain.

Snyder's counsel also complained that the cover art accompanying the article that depicts a defaced illustration of him with scribbled-on horns and a goatee was an egregious anti-Semetic slur, a bold assertion when the team you own is called the "Redskins."

The City Paper contends that it offered Snyder an opportunity to write a guest column responding to the article and welcomed a sit-down with him and editors at which he could present information pointing about alleged misstatements about him in the article.  The weekly's attorney claims the lawsuit is specious and that staff writer Dave McKenna's article is a "tongue-in-cheek" opinion piece fully protected by the First Amendment.

The publication denied any anti-Semetic motivation for the art accompanying the article, claiming that the illustration was meant to depict the actions of a frustrated Redskins fan defacing an image of Snyder. The plaintiff pledged to donate any judgment awarded, if he prevails, to a fund to benefit the homeless.

As a public figure, Snyder faces an uphill struggle to prevail in his libel case, as he will have to prove with convincing clarity that the City Paper published the profile with actual malice, that is, that the editor published the purported misstatements about Snyder knowing they were false, or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

Snyder would be better served trying to remedy his team's 6-10 record in 2010 and working toward avoiding an NFL management lockout that would kill the 2012 season.