Nevada: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes, NRS 41.635 to 41.670, are a home-grown
scheme, not a version of the newer Uniform Public Expression Protection
Act. First enacted in 1993, broadened in 2013, and last substantively
changed in 2015, they protect a "good faith communication" made while
petitioning the government or exercising free speech on a matter of
public concern. If you're sued over one, 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 on the plaintiff. A prevailing movant
recovers fees and costs as a matter of course, can be awarded up to
$10,000 more, and can even bring a separate lawsuit for damages against
the original plaintiff. Nevada's statute has no separate exemptions
section at all.

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 communication must be
"truthful or 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 — "'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' means any: 1. Communication that is aimed at
  procuring any governmental or electoral action... 4. Communication made
  in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open
  to the public or in a public forum, which is truthful or is made
  without knowledge of its falsehood." Source:
  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-07-05).
• 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 2026-07-05).
• NRS 41.660 — "2. 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. 3. ...(a) Determine whether the moving
  party has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
  claim is based upon a good faith communication... (b) ...determine
  whether the plaintiff has demonstrated with prima facie evidence a
  probability of prevailing on the claim... (e) ...stay discovery
  pending: (1) A ruling by the court on the motion; and (2) The
  disposition of any appeal...; and (f) Rule on the motion within 20
  judicial days after the motion is served upon the plaintiff... 5. ...the
  dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits." Source:
  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-07-05).
• NRS 41.665 — "2. When a plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of
  success of prevailing on a claim pursuant to NRS 41.660, the
  Legislature intends that... 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 2026-07-05).
• NRS 41.670 — "1. ...(a) The court shall award reasonable costs and
  attorney's fees to the person against whom the action was brought...
  (b) The court may award, in addition..., an amount of up to $10,000...
  (c) The person against whom the action is brought may bring a separate
  action to recover: (1) Compensatory damages; (2) Punitive damages; and
  (3) Attorney's fees and costs of bringing the separate action. 2. If
  the court denies a special motion to dismiss... and finds that the
  motion was frivolous or vexatious, the court shall award to the
  prevailing party reasonable costs and attorney's fees... 4. If the
  court denies the special motion to dismiss..., an interlocutory appeal
  lies to the Supreme Court." Source:
  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html (accessed 2026-07-05).