Nevada: Anti-SLAPP Laws
The short answer
Yes. Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes, NRS 41.635 to 41.670, are a home-grown scheme first enacted in 1993, broadened in 2013, and last substantively amended in 2015 — not a version of the newer Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. If you're sued over a good-faith communication made while petitioning the government or exercising free speech on a matter of public concern, you can file a special motion to dismiss within 60 days of service. Discovery is stayed while the motion (and any appeal of it) is pending. The court must rule within 20 judicial days after the motion is served, and a prevailing movant recovers fees and costs as a matter of course, plus can be awarded up to $10,000 more. Nevada's statute has no separate exemptions section.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Nevada. Ask about your specific facts and see which parts of current Nevada law apply, with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law | NRS 41.635 to 41.670, enacted 1993, broadened in 2013 (S.B. 286) to cover public-forum/public-interest speech generally (not just speech directed at government), and last substantively amended in 2015 (S.B. 444), which added a new legislative-findings section (§ 41.665) and changed the plaintiff's burden under § 41.660 to prima facie evidence; a home-grown California-influenced scheme, not a version of the newer Uniform Public Expression Protection Act |
|---|---|
| What speech/conduct is protected | A 'good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern' (§ 41.637): communication aimed at procuring governmental or electoral action; a complaint to a government official about a matter of concern to that entity; a statement made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive, or judicial body or other official proceeding; or a communication in direct connection with an issue of public interest made in a public forum — but only if the communication 'is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood,' a truthfulness gate built into the scope test itself, not just a later defense |
| Special motion to strike/dismiss | Special motion to dismiss within 60 days of service of the complaint, extendable by the court for good cause (§ 41.660(2)); no separate hearing deadline — the court must rule on the motion within 20 judicial days after it is served on the plaintiff (§ 41.660(3)(f)); discovery is stayed pending the ruling and the disposition of any appeal (§ 41.660(3)(e)), with limited discovery allowed only on a showing that needed information is held by another party and isn't reasonably available otherwise (§ 41.660(4)) |
| Burden of proof | Two-step: the movant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is based on a good faith communication under § 41.637 (§ 41.660(3)(a)); if met, the plaintiff must then demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim (§ 41.660(3)(b)) — § 41.665 directs courts to apply this second-step burden the same way California courts applied California's anti-SLAPP burden as of June 8, 2015 |
| Attorney's fees | Mandatory reasonable costs and attorney's fees to a prevailing movant, plus a discretionary additional award of up to $10,000 (§ 41.670(1)(a)-(b)); a prevailing movant may also bring a separate action for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and the fees/costs of that separate action (§ 41.670(1)(c)) — a built-in SLAPPback right; if the motion is denied and found frivolous or vexatious, the prevailing responding party gets mandatory fees plus a possible additional award up to $10,000 and other deterrent relief (§ 41.670(2)-(3)) |
| Appeal rights | If the court denies the special motion to dismiss, an interlocutory appeal lies directly to the Nevada Supreme Court (§ 41.670(4)); the statute creates no matching express right to appeal a grant, and dismissal under a granted motion operates as an adjudication upon the merits (§ 41.660(5)) |
| Exemptions | None — NRS 41.635 to 41.670 has no statutory exemptions or carve-outs section of the kind UPEPA states use for government-enforcement or commercial-speech claims; the closest limiting feature is the truthfulness requirement built into the § 41.637 definition itself, which keeps the motion from ever reaching a communication the movant cannot show was truthful or made without knowledge of its falsity |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
Requirements one by one
Governing law
Nevada's anti-SLAPP law is NRS 41.635 to 41.670. It was first enacted in
1993, limited at the time to speech directed at government. A 2013
amendment (S.B. 286) broadened it to cover public-forum, public-interest
speech generally. The most recent substantive change was a 2015 amendment
(S.B. 444), which added a new legislative-findings section, § 41.665, and
changed the standard a plaintiff must meet to survive the motion. This is
a California-influenced, home-grown statute — not a state that adopted
the newer Uniform Public Expression Protection Act model.
What speech or conduct is protected
The Act protects a "good faith communication in furtherance of the right
to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an
issue of public concern." That covers communication aimed at procuring
governmental or electoral action; a complaint to a government official
about a matter of concern to that entity; a statement made in direct
connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive,
or judicial body or other official proceeding; or a communication on an
issue of public interest made in a public forum. Every one of those
categories comes with a built-in condition: the statute requires that the
communication "is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood."
Unlike newer
UPEPA-style statutes, Nevada bakes a truthfulness requirement into the
scope test itself, not just into a later merits defense.
The special motion to dismiss
File within 60 days of being served with the complaint, extendable by the
court for good cause. There's no separate hearing deadline in the statute
— instead, the court must rule on the motion within 20 judicial days
after it is served on the plaintiff. Filing the motion stays discovery
until the court rules and, if there's an appeal, until that appeal is
resolved too. A party can still get limited discovery by showing the
information needed is held by another party and isn't reasonably
available without it.
Burden of proof
First, the person who filed the motion must show, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the claim is based on a good faith communication as
defined in § 41.637. If that's shown, the plaintiff must then demonstrate
with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim.
Nevada's legislature was explicit about this second step: § 41.665 directs
courts to apply the same burden of proof that a plaintiff had to meet
under California's anti-SLAPP law as of June 8, 2015 — a direct
legislative cross-reference to another state's case law that isn't found
in the other anti-SLAPP statutes built for this survey so far.
Attorney's fees
A prevailing movant gets mandatory reasonable costs and attorney's fees,
plus the court may add up to $10,000 more as a deterrent. A prevailing
movant can also file a completely separate lawsuit to recover compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and the fees and costs of bringing that
separate action — a built-in "SLAPPback" right. Going the other way: if
the motion is denied and the court finds it was frivolous or vexatious,
the party who beat the motion gets mandatory fees and costs, plus the
court may add its own deterrent award of up to $10,000 and other relief.
Right to appeal
If the court denies the special motion to dismiss, the losing movant can
take an interlocutory appeal straight to the Nevada Supreme Court. The
statute doesn't create a matching express right to immediately appeal a
grant — and if the motion is granted, the dismissal counts as an
adjudication on the merits, not just a procedural dismissal.
Exemptions
Nevada's statute has no separate exemptions or carve-outs section at all
— no government-enforcement exception, no commercial-speech exception,
nothing comparable to what UPEPA states typically list. The only built-in
limit is the truthfulness requirement inside the § 41.637 definition
itself: a communication the movant can't show was truthful, or made
without knowledge of its falsity, never qualifies as protected activity
in the first place.
What trips people up
A single lawsuit with mixed statements doesn't live or die as one
unit. The Nevada Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Rosenbrook v. Lloyd
clarified that when a complaint challenges several different
communications, some protected and some not, a court must review each
challenged communication separately under the first prong before applying
the second prong only to the ones that qualify — a partial win is a real
outcome, not an all-or-nothing result.
There's no separate hearing deadline, just a ruling deadline. Nevada's
statute doesn't require a hearing within a set window the way some other
states' anti-SLAPP laws do — it only requires the court to rule within 20
judicial days after the motion is served on the plaintiff.
The $10,000 award is discretionary, not automatic. The mandatory piece
of the fee award is costs and attorney's fees; the additional up-to-
$10,000 amount, on either side, is something the court "may" award, not
something it must.
Common questions
Does Nevada require the special motion to name a specific statute
section? The motion is brought "pursuant to NRS 41.660," but the
underlying protected-activity showing has to satisfy the four-category
definition in § 41.637, including its truthfulness requirement.
If my whole lawsuit mixes protected and unprotected statements, will
the anti-SLAPP motion wipe out everything? Not necessarily — under
Rosenbrook v. Lloyd (2026), courts must evaluate each challenged
communication on its own, so a case can be dismissed in part and continue
in part.
Can I sue the other side back if their anti-SLAPP motion against me was
frivolous? If the court denies the motion and finds it was frivolous or
vexatious, you're entitled to mandatory fees and costs, and the court can
add up to $10,000 more plus other relief to deter future filings.
Statutes and sources
- NRS 41.637 — The definition covers four categories of petitioning or
public-interest communication. Its fourth category expressly requires a
communication in a public place or forum that "is truthful or is made
without knowledge of its falsehood." Source:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-08-22). - NRS 41.650 — "A person who engages in a good faith communication in
furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in
direct connection with an issue of public concern is immune from any
civil action for claims based upon the communication." Source:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-08-22). - NRS 41.660 — "A special motion to dismiss must be filed within 60 days
after service of the complaint, which period may be extended by the court
for good cause shown." The same section supplies the burden sequence,
discovery stay, ruling deadline, and merits effect of dismissal. Source:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-08-22). - NRS 41.665 — The Legislature says "the plaintiff must meet the same
burden of proof that a plaintiff has been required to meet pursuant to
California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation law as
of June 8, 2015." Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html
(accessed 2026-08-22). - NRS 41.670 — "The court shall award reasonable costs and attorney's
fees to the person against whom the action was brought." If the court
denies the motion, "an interlocutory appeal lies to the Supreme Court."
Source:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-08-22).
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.
Get the answer for your situation
You just read how Nevada handles this in general. Ask your specific question and see which parts of current Nevada law apply to your facts, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.