671 F.Supp.3d 1222
D. Colo.2023Background
- Eric Coomer sued Make Your Life Epic LLC (ThriveTime Show) and Clayton Clark for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy arising from post‑2020 election statements.
- Defendants filed a Colorado anti‑SLAPP Special Motion to Dismiss and sought to stay discovery; the magistrate judge stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.
- On March 7, 2023, Judge William J. Martínez denied the Special Motion. Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal and then moved to stay district court proceedings pending that interlocutory appeal.
- Defendants argued the notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction (relying on Stewart) and that the interest of justice supports a stay.
- Coomer countered the March 7 Order was not immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine, so the notice did not divest jurisdiction and a stay was improper.
- The court concluded the March 7 Order is not among the limited class of immediately appealable collateral orders (distinguishing Stewart and relying on Los Lobos), retained jurisdiction, and denied the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Defendants' Notice of Appeal divest the district court of jurisdiction over the action? | The March 7 Order is not immediately appealable; therefore the notice does not divest jurisdiction. | The interlocutory appeal implicates the whole action, so filing the notice divests the district court (citing Stewart). | Court held Stewart is limited; absent a properly appealable collateral order, the notice does not automatically divest jurisdiction. |
| Is the March 7 Order immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine? | The order does not meet Cohen's second prong — it is not separable from the merits because it applied the anti‑SLAPP statute and denied the motion on its terms. | The appeal is proper and affects the whole proceeding; interlocutory review is warranted. | Court held the Order is not within the small class of collateral orders; interlocutory appeal is not clearly authorized. |
| Should the court stay proceedings in the interest of justice pending the Tenth Circuit decision? | A stay is unnecessary because the court retains jurisdiction and the appeal is not properly interlocutory. | A stay is necessary to protect defendants from having to proceed while their appeal is pending. | Court denied the stay, finding no basis to pause proceedings where appealability is lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Donges, 915 F.2d 572 (10th Cir. 1990) (interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity divests district court of jurisdiction over the action)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (recognized interlocutory appealability for denial of qualified immunity under the collateral‑order doctrine)
- Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018) (distinguishes anti‑SLAPP denials that refuse to apply state statute from denials that apply it; guides collateral‑order analysis)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (established collateral‑order doctrine criteria)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (explains collateral‑order doctrine is limited to a small class of orders)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (federal courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)