September 20, 2026 Case Update:
Nelson has defended this case pro se, without legal counsel, against a national law firm, and filed two dispositive motions before the Court: a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and an anti-SLAPP motion.
The judge originally stated that he would GRANT Nelson’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Jamie Nelson’s original anti-SLAPP motion, meanwhile, was not rejected on the merits. In June the Court Denied the anti-Slapp as moot. “Denied as moot” does not mean the Court rejected Nelson’s anti-SLAPP arguments. It means the Court did not rule against Nelson’s anti-SLAPP arguments; the motion became procedurally unnecessary after Taylor amended her complaint.
Earlier, on March 18, 2026, while Nelson was representing herself, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion without prejudice because Nelson had not included enough details in her motion. “Without prejudice” meant Nelson could refile an anti-SLAPP challenge later in the case.
Because the Court found Nelson’s first-step showing insufficient, it did not reach the second step—including whether Amy Taylor could demonstrate a probability of prevailing on her claims. The Court denied Taylor’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that, despite deficiencies in Nelson’s filing, the motion was not “frivolous” or “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay" as Taylor's lawyers tried to claim.
Nelson contends that Taylor’s side later inaccurately characterized the tentative ruling to the press as a denial of Nelson’s anti-SLAPP motion without explaining that the ruling was only tentatively denied without prejudice—meaning there was no final ruling and that Nelson could bring another anti-SLAPP challenge in the future.
After Taylor later amended her complaint, the original motion no longer addressed the operative pleading. On June 15, the Court therefore ultimately denied the anti-SLAPP motion as moot—meaning there was no longer a live motion for the Court to decide, not that Nelson’s anti-SLAPP arguments had been rejected on the merits. The Court’s September 15 final ruling expressly recounts that procedural history.
It means the original motion became outdated after Taylor amended her complaint, so there was no longer a live motion for the Court to decide. The Court therefore closed out that motion without deciding its merits.
The image above is an excerpt from the Courts September 14, 2026 final ruling, which recounts the procedural history and confirms that Nelson's original anti-SLAPP motion was denied without prejudice and ultimately denied as moot, meaning not ruled on the merits.
