Surdoval v. Surdoval
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Date Filed: Jan. 6, 2025
Background: On Dec. 31, 2021, Brian Surdoval died of a gunshot wound. While his death was officially ruled a suicide, Surdoval’s two sisters publicly claimed that their older brother had killed him and criticized the official investigation for overlooking relevant facts in ruling the death a suicide.
The older brother sued his sisters for defamation. The sisters sought to dismiss the lawsuit under New Jersey’s recently enacted anti-SLAPP law, which is based on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act and allows courts to quickly throw out strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, that are intended to chill speech about matters of public interest.
A trial court denied the sisters’ motion. The court concluded that speech about one’s belief that a serious crime was committed, remains unsolved and, in fact, that the official investigation of the matter was flawed, is not a matter of public concern.
The sisters appealed the decision to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Our Position: In a friend-of-the-court brief joined by the New Jersey Press Association and the News/Media Alliance, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press urges the appeals court to reverse the trial court’s decision and hold that statements made to and about law enforcement regarding an alleged failure to solve a violent crime constitute speech on a matter of public concern.
- New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law protects speech, including news reporting, from litigation meant to chill First Amendment expression.
- The anti-SLAPP law’s predicate requirement that speech address a matter of public concern is vital to its effectiveness and should be broadly interpreted.
- Speech about law enforcement investigations and alleged unsolved crimes relates to matters of public concern under New Jersey law.
- Holding that the speech at issue here constitutes a matter of public concern serves the public interest.
From the Brief: “If the lower court decision stands, it will restrict the public’s ability to speak about crimes and hold government accountable in its administration of justice, and the press’s ability to report on those important topics.”