Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc. v. Filer
117 F. Supp. 3d 1313
D. Utah2015Background
- Diamond Ranch Academy (DRA) sued California resident Chelsea Filer in federal court (diversity) for defamation and related torts based on statements she posted on a website and elsewhere criticizing DRA.
- Filer filed a California anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike (and alternatively invoked Utah’s anti‑SLAPP statute in a counterclaim), seeking immunity from suit and a stay of discovery under California law.
- DRA moved to stay briefing on Filer’s special motion pending discovery, arguing anti‑SLAPP is procedural and conflicts with the Federal Rules (notably Rule 56(d)).
- The court ordered briefing on whether federal or state law applies and whether discovery is necessary before ruling on the special motion to strike.
- The record included pleadings and declarations (no formal discovery occurred); Filer averred she is domiciled in California and posted the contested statements from California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California/Utah anti‑SLAPP statutes conflict with Federal Rules | Anti‑SLAPP is procedural and conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P., so federal rules should control under Erie | Anti‑SLAPP provides substantive immunity and does not conflict with the Federal Rules; federal court should apply state anti‑SLAPP where appropriate | No conflict: court held anti‑SLAPP statutes are substantive and do not conflict with the Federal Rules (discovery exception preserves compatibility) |
| Whether a discovery stay (per anti‑SLAPP) conflicts with Rule 56(d) right to discovery | DRA: California’s automatic stay prevents needed discovery and conflicts with Rule 56(d) | Filer: California statute contains a good‑cause exception permitting targeted discovery, akin to Rule 56(d) relief | Held the California discovery stay is not absolute; the statute’s exception avoids direct conflict with Rule 56(d) |
| Whether there is a true conflict between California and Utah anti‑SLAPP laws | DRA: Utah law should apply or discovery is needed to decide; implies Utah’s statute is applicable | Filer: California law applies to the anti‑SLAPP immunity issue because of her California domicile and where the speech originated | Held there is a material conflict (different burdens and standards); choice‑of‑law analysis required |
| Which state’s anti‑SLAPP law governs the immunity issue | DRA: needs discovery to determine where injury and conduct occurred; urges application of Utah law | Filer: dépeçage applies; analyze anti‑SLAPP issue separately and apply the law of the speaker’s domicile (California) | Held California has the most significant relationship to the anti‑SLAPP issue (speaker domicile and origin of speech weigh heavily); California law governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (describes anti‑SLAPP as immunity from litigation and protects speakers from the burden of trial)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (diversity cases require application of state substantive law and federal procedural law)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1965) (framework for determining when federal procedural rules govern in diversity cases)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2010) (limits on application of state rules that would abridge substantive rights; discussion of Rules Enabling Act)
- United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying Erie aims to justify applying state anti‑SLAPP protections in federal court)
- James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC, 658 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (identifies Shady Grove related precedent the Tenth Circuit follows)
- Gorman v. Campbell County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 630 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2010) (discusses federal procedure vs. state rule issues under Shady Grove)
- Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 787 F. Supp. 2d 797 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (treats anti‑SLAPP as substantive and applies dépeçage—speaker domicile and place of speech are central)
- Underground Solutions, Inc. v. Palermo, 41 F. Supp. 3d 720 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (applies domicile/place‑of‑speech analysis to conclude the speaker’s state law governs internet speech anti‑SLAPP questions)