Davide M. Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc.
910 F.3d 1345
11th Cir.2018Background
- Carbone, former CEO of St. Mary’s Medical Center, sued CNN for allegedly publishing false defamatory reports about the pediatric cardiac-mortality rate at the hospital, causing program closure and his resignation.
- CNN moved to strike the complaint under Georgia’s anti‑SLAPP statute, O.C.G.A. § 9‑11‑11.1, or alternatively to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Georgia’s anti‑SLAPP statute permits a pretrial “motion to strike” and requires plaintiffs to show a probability of prevailing; it stays discovery and authorizes attorney’s fees for a prevailing movant.
- The district court denied CNN’s motion, holding Georgia’s special‑dismissal procedure conflicts with Rules 8, 12, and 56 and therefore does not apply in federal court, and also found Carbone’s complaint plausible under Rule 12(b)(6).
- CNN appealed the denial of the motion to strike; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the applicability of the anti‑SLAPP procedure and whether it had pendent jurisdiction to review the Rule 12(b)(6) ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia’s anti‑SLAPP motion‑to‑strike applies in federal diversity cases | Carbone: anti‑SLAPP conflicts with Federal Rules and should not apply in federal court | CNN: anti‑SLAPP complements (doesn't conflict with) Rules 8, 12, 56 and protects First Amendment petition/speech rights; prior circuit decisions support application | Held: Anti‑SLAPP motion‑to‑strike conflicts with Rules 8, 12, 56 (pleading, dismissal, summary judgment) and thus does not apply in federal court |
| Whether Eleventh Circuit has pendent appellate jurisdiction to review denial of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal | Carbone: appellate review unnecessary; issue is separable | CNN: denial of motion to dismiss is intertwined with motion to strike denial and should be reviewed | Held: Court lacks pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the Rule 12(b)(6) denial; affirmed denial of motion to strike and dismissed appeal as to motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (Federal rule answers question of state law applicability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and plausibility clarified)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (Federal Rule controls if sufficiently broad)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (Erie framework when no Federal Rule answers the question)
- Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (conflict where state law precludes federal rule discretion)
- Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (procedural/regulatory scope under Rules Enabling Act)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary‑judgment burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (judge’s role at summary judgment)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (limits on finding conflicts between federal rules and state statutes)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir.: anti‑SLAPP statute does not apply in federal court)
- Royalty Network, Inc. v. Harris, 756 F.3d 1351 (Eleventh Circuit prior decision distinguishing different anti‑SLAPP provisions)
- Tobinick v. Novella, 848 F.3d 935 (Eleventh Circuit decision discussing anti‑SLAPP application; waiver noted)