N.D. v. N.J.D.

2026 COA 18. No. 25CA0942. Action Involving Exercise of Constitutional Rights—Anti-SLAPP—Special Motion to Dismiss—Hearing—Attorney Fees.

March 19, 2026

Mother and father have one child, D.D. After they divorced, mother filed a police report alleging that father may have committed physical and sexual abuse against D.D. The El Paso County Department of Human Services (department) conducted an assessment that was ultimately closed as unfounded. Before the department closed the case, mother reported two vandalism incidents at her home and her belief that father might have been behind them. Father then filed this action against mother, asserting defamation, extreme and outrageous conduct, and false claims of child abuse or neglect. Mother answered and then filed a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The district court scheduled a hearing on the motion but then denied the motion based on the briefing and vacated the hearing.

On appeal, mother argued that the court was required to hold a hearing on her motion. Based on the plain language of CRS § 13-20-1101(5), when considering a special motion to dismiss under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, a district court is required to hold a hearing. The district court thus erred by vacating the hearing and deciding the motion strictly on the briefing.

Mother also requested her appellate attorney fees under § 13-20-1101(4)(a), and her appellate attorney fees and costs under C.A.R. 39.1. The court of appeals concluded that mother did not prevail because the court did not address any of the merits arguments she raised in her motion to dismiss. The court thus denied mother’s request, but directed the district court to determine and award her reasonable appellate costs on remand.

The order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.