Caranchini v. Peck
355 F. Supp. 3d 1052
D. Kan.2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Gwendolyn G. Caranchini (a disbarred former attorney) sued Rick and Lola Peck and others after a TRO proceeding and subsequent arrest on telephone-harassment charges that were later dismissed; plaintiff was jailed ~36 hours.
- Plaintiff asserts five counts against the Pecks: three defamation claims (Counts I, II, V), a harassment/threat claim (Count III), and conspiracy to incarcerate (Count IV).
- Defendants moved to strike under Kansas’s Public Speech Protection Act (K.S.A. § 60-5320, an anti‑SLAPP statute), seeking to enforce the Act’s early dismissal, hearing, and discovery‑stay mechanics.
- The court considered whether the Kansas anti‑SLAPP statute applies in federal diversity cases under Erie and related Supreme Court precedents.
- The court concluded the Kansas Act applies in federal diversity actions for purposes of determining substantive burdens created by the Act, but expressed doubt that the Act’s 30‑day hearing and mandatory discovery‑stay provisions must be applied in federal court.
- On the merits, the court struck Counts I, II, and V as being based on protected petition/speech and because plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of prevailing; it denied striking Count III and preserved parts of Count IV not involving protected communications (e.g., alleged payments to induce prosecution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Kansas anti‑SLAPP statute in federal diversity suit | Caranchini did not contest applicability (implicitly argues federal procedures govern) | Pecks: Kansas Act applies and permits early strike of claims arising from petition/speech | Court: Kansas Act applies in federal diversity actions to the extent it defines substantive burdens and outcomes; procedural timing/discovery provisions may not fully apply |
| Do Counts I, II, V arise from protected petition/speech? | Caranchini: allegations show false statements and reputational harm from TRO and prosecutor communications | Pecks: statements were communications in judicial/prosecutorial proceedings protected by the Act | Court: Yes; Counts I, II, V concern petition/speech and plaintiff failed to show likelihood of prevailing; those counts are stricken |
| Are Counts III (harassment) and Count IV (conspiracy) protected? | Caranchini: alleges threats, stalking, vandalism, and pay‑for‑prosecution scheme; asserts tort claims | Pecks: portions alleging communications with DA protected; other conduct not protected | Court: Count III (harassment/threat) is not protected and survives; Count IV: communications with DA are struck, but allegations of payment to induce prosecution are not protected and remain for now |
| Entitlement to fees/sanctions under the Act | Caranchini: opposed | Pecks: request attorney fees and sanctions for prevailing on motion to strike | Court: Denied now—because not all claims resolved; will entertain later motion limited to dismissed claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (discusses Erie balance between state substantive and federal procedural law) (applied to analyze whether state anti‑SLAPP applies in federal court)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (addresses conflict between state law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (framework for determining whether a federal rule "answers the same question")
- Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir.) (held New Mexico anti‑SLAPP procedural and not applicable in diversity) (distinguished here because NM statute did not shift substantive burdens)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (held Maine anti‑SLAPP applicable in federal court) (influenced court’s conclusion about applying Kansas Act to avoid forum shopping)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir.) (held D.C. anti‑SLAPP incompatible with Federal Rules 12/56) (discussed as contrasting approach to applicability)
- Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.) (held certain procedural discovery limits in state anti‑SLAPP conflict with federal procedure) (cited regarding discovery/hearing mechanics)