Corecivic, Inc. v. Candide Group, LLC
46 F.4th 1136
9th Cir.2022Background
- Morgan Simon (Candide Group) published Forbes pieces linking CoreCivic to family separation at the U.S. border and alleging lobbying for harsher criminal/immigration laws.
- CoreCivic sued Simon and Candide for defamation and defamation by implication in federal court; Candide filed a special motion to strike under Californias anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16).
- District court granted the anti‑SLAPP motion as to statements about family separation (citing CoreCivic counsel's admission that CoreCivic operates adult immigrant detention facilities and Candide's clarifications) and entered judgment; it did not rule on lobbying‑related statements.
- On appeal CoreCivic argued anti‑SLAPP cannot apply in federal court (conflict with Rules 8, 12, 56) and urged reconsideration in light of Shady Grove; Candide relied on Ninth Circuit precedent applying Californias anti‑SLAPP statute in federal court.
- The Ninth Circuit held anti‑SLAPP applies in federal court (Shady Grove not an intervening, irreconcilable authority), applied the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard, affirmed dismissal of family‑separation claims (express and implied), and remanded lobbying‑related claims for the district court to decide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of California anti‑SLAPP in federal court (and impact of Shady Grove) | Anti‑SLAPP conflicts with FRCP 8/12/56; Shady Grove requires revisiting Ninth precedent | Ninth precedent (Newsham et al.) controls; Shady Grove is not intervening or clearly irreconcilable | Anti‑SLAPP applies in federal court; Shady Grove does not overrule Ninth Circuit precedent |
| Procedural standard for resolving anti‑SLAPP motion that challenges legal sufficiency | State anti‑SLAPP rules should not displace federal pleading standards | Apply federal Rule 12(b)(6) for legal‑sufficiency challenges (Per Planned Parenthood) | Use 12(b)(6) plausibility standard for legal‑sufficiency anti‑SLAPP challenges |
| Express defamation based on family‑separation statements | Statements falsely accused CoreCivic of housing children separated under the family‑separation policy | Statements did not allege CoreCivic housed separated children; CoreCivic admitted operating adult detention facilities | Dismissed: CoreCivic failed to plead falsity (complaint denied the wrong "substance") |
| Defamation by implication from text/photo (family‑separation context) | Combined text and photo reasonably imply CoreCivic housed separated children | Context (clarifications, article language, image caption) negates that implication; implication implausible | Majority: dismissed (no reasonable implication); Dissent: jury question — reasonable defamatory interpretation exists |
| Lobbying‑related defamation claims | Allegations that CoreCivic lobbied for harsher laws are false | District court did not decide these claims | Vacated and remanded for district court to consider lobbying claims in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Supreme Court fractured decision on whether state procedural rule limiting class actions conflicts with Federal Rules)
- United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (held California anti‑SLAPP applies in federal diversity actions absent a direct collision with federal rules)
- Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) (anti‑SLAPP legal‑sufficiency challenges should be analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Manzari v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., 830 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2016) (image and surrounding text can support a defamation‑by‑implication claim)
- Metabolife Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (declined to apply state discovery provisions where they conflicted with Rule 56)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standard for when a three‑judge panel may overturn prior circuit precedent)