Anti-SLAPP Laws in Nevada

At a glance

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).