Ernst v. Carrigan
814 F.3d 116
2d Cir.2016Background
- Two Addison, Vermont couples (the Carrigans and the Kauffmans) allegedly circulated a defamatory anonymous letter and made/introduced related statements/documents at town Selectboard meetings about plaintiffs Barbara Ernst and Barbara Supeno.
- Plaintiffs sued in Vermont state court for defamation and related torts; defendants removed the case to federal court because the complaint included a § 1983 claim.
- Defendants filed special motions to strike under Vermont’s anti‑SLAPP statute (12 V.S.A. § 1041), seeking early dismissal of claims tied to: (i) the April 2011 letter, (ii) statements at Selectboard meetings, (iii) a document presented to the Selectboard, and (iv) a letter to plaintiffs’ lawyer.
- The district court held the April 2011 letter was not protected by the anti‑SLAPP statute (not a public‑interest matter) but granted the motions as to statements and a document presented at the Selectboard, finding plaintiffs failed to show those statements were devoid of reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law.
- Parties cross‑appealed the district court’s mixed rulings; the panel’s threshold question was whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear interlocutory appeals of anti‑SLAPP merits rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an interlocutory appeal of a district court order resolving the merits of a Vermont anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike is reviewable under the collateral order doctrine | Ernst/Supeno argued denial (or grant) should be immediately appealable because anti‑SLAPP offers immunity from trial and is too important to defer | Defendants argued anti‑SLAPP rulings are separable immunity‑like orders and thus immediately appealable | Not appealable under collateral order: anti‑SLAPP merits rulings are entangled with merits and fact‑dependent, failing the "completely separate" requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (establishes collateral order doctrine)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (three‑part test for collateral order review)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (separability requires an issue conceptually distinct from merits)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (qualified immunity review is a legal question separable from merits)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (justification for immediate appeal must overcome final‑judgment rule)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. decision holding anti‑SLAPP denials appealable — discussed and distinguished)
- Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. — narrow holding that an anti‑SLAPP inapplicability question was appealable; distinguished)