Madaio Eyet & Associates LLP is pleased to announce a significant appellate victory under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) in Moroney v. Habba et al., decided today by the New Jersey Appellate Division.
New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law — the UPEPA — is one of the most powerful and underutilized tools available to attorneys and litigants facing retaliatory lawsuits. SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” and these suits are typically filed not to win, but to burden defendants with costly litigation in order to silence protected speech or punish zealous advocacy. Enacted in 2023, the UPEPA allows defendants to seek early dismissal of such claims through an expedited Order to Show Cause, while also shifting attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff, making it a powerful deterrent against abuse of the legal system.
Our clients, Alina Habba — a prominent New Jersey attorney and former Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey — and Sandelands Eyet LLP, were sued by the opposing party in a matrimonial matter they had litigated years earlier. The plaintiff alleged malicious prosecution and related claims arising from the firm’s representation of his ex-wife, targeting conduct that included advising her on filing a domestic violence complaint, preparing and filing that complaint, and advocating on her behalf through trial.
Rather than answer the complaint, our clients filed an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) under the UPEPA seeking dismissal and attorneys’ fees. The trial court dismissed the OTSC, finding the anti-SLAPP statute inapplicable. We appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that plaintiff’s claims were squarely based on protected communications made in connection with a judicial proceeding under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-50(b)(1) and (2). The court found that advising a client, filing a complaint on her behalf, and representing her through trial are precisely the kinds of protected activities the UPEPA was designed to shield — and that a lawsuit targeting that conduct is exactly the type of retaliatory litigation the statute was enacted to stop. The matter has been remanded for a full substantive review of plaintiff’s claims under the UPEPA framework.
As one of the first appellate decisions to apply the UPEPA to attorney conduct in judicial proceedings, Moroney will serve as an important guidepost for courts and litigants in this still-developing area of law. It sends a clear message that attorneys cannot be dragged into costly litigation simply for zealously representing their clients.
The case is Moroney v. Sandelands et al., Docket No. A-0042-24, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
If you have been sued for actions taken in connection with representing a client — or if you believe you are the target of a retaliatory defamation lawsuit designed to chill protected speech or advocacy — the attorneys at Madaio Eyet & Associates are available for consultation. Please contact our office to discuss how we may be able to help.