Dc Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation
706 F.3d 1009
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- This case arises from a district court decision denying defendants' California anti-SLAPP motion to strike DC Comics' state-law claims in a federal copyright action.
- DC Comics sought to strike claims for intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition under state law.
- Defendants (the Shuster heirs, Toberoff, and related entities) appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion on interlocutory grounds under the collateral order doctrine.
- The panel previously held in Batzel v. Smith that denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, a view challenged post-Mohawk Industries.
- The Supreme Court in Mohawk Industries clarified the collateral order test by focusing on finality and the notion of effective unreviewability, particularly for discovery-immunity orders.
- The court reaffirmed that California's anti-SLAPP statute provides an immunity from suit, not merely a defense against liability, justifying immediate appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has collateral-order jurisdiction | DC faced an immediate appeal under Batzel's framework. | Mohawk undermines Batzel's basis for immediate appeal. | Yes; jurisdiction maintained. |
| Whether Mohawk overruled Batzel's immunity-from-suit rationale | Batzel remains valid despite Mohawk. | Mohawk limited irreducible unreviewability for immunities. | No; Batzel's immunity-from-suit rationale survives Mohawk. |
| Should California anti-SLAPP denial be treated as an immunity from suit for appeal purposes | Anti-SLAPP denial is an immunity from suit deserving immediate review. | Anti-SLAPP denial is merely a defense against liability. | Remains an immunity from suit for purposes of collateral-order appeal. |
| Does Mohawk affect the class of orders eligible for collateral-order review in this context | Mohawk narrows the category and could exclude anti-SLAPP orders. | The anti-SLAPP context continues to warrant immediate appeal. | No material change; anti-SLAPP denial remains immediately appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (collateral order review available for denial of anti-SLAPP motion)
- Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (Supreme Court 2009) (collateral order doctrine requires effective unreviewability)
- Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 693 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012) (immunity-from-suit vs defense distinctions in anti-SLAPP context)
- Englert v. MacDonell, 551 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2009) (state anti-SLAPP statutes— Oregon; defenses vs immunities distinction)
- Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (importance of immunities in collateral-order analysis)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (speech/petition rights context in collateral-order considerations)
- Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (intermediate post-Mohawk collateral-order considerations)
- Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press LLC, 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (immediate appealability of anti-SLAPP-like statutes in other circuits)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) (Maine anti-SLAPP statute and immediate appealability)