Whether the mandatory expedited hearing on a special motion to dismiss under an anti-SLAPP law is necessary to prevent a deprivation of fundamental procedural rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | The District of Columbia, like three-fifths of the States, has an “anti-SLAPP” law, D.C. Code §§ 16-5501 ) to 16-5505 (2012), to discourage the filing of SLAPP | suits — “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” — and to prevent them from imposing significant litigation costs and chilling protected speech. A central feature of most anti-SLAPP laws is a special motion to dismiss, which has the prospect of truncating or avoiding discovery, summary judgment, and trial. Under the D.C. law, “[t]he court shall hold an expedited hearing on the special motion to dismiss, and issue a ruling as soon as practicable after the hearing.” § 16-5502(d). Here the court granted the motion to dismiss without holding the expedited hearing. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the mandatory expedited hearing on a special motion to dismiss under an antiSLAPP law is necessary to prevent a depriva; tion of fundamental procedural rights. 2. Whether the courts have a heightened obligation to preserve the rights of litigants under anti-SLAPP laws where one party appears pro se. ii PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioner brought his lawsuit in the D.C. Superior Court against the Specialty Hospital of Washington, LLC, the Capitol Hill Nursing Center at the hospital, Susan Bailey, CEO of the hospital, and Frank Wilich, President of the hospital.