Greensprings Baptist Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26217
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Gree nsprings sued Miller and attorney defendants in a diversity case arising from a 2000 gift dispute and related litigation; the Miller suit against Greensprings was removed then dismissed by the district court.
- Greensprings filed a malicious prosecution suit against the Millers and the attorney defendants; the Millers settled with Greensprings and are dismissed from this appeal.
- The district court granted an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike and gave Greensprings leave to amend the complaint to show malice.
- Greensprings sought to amend after the anti-SLAPP dismissal; the case proceeded in district court with the amended complaint.
- The attorney defendants appealed the district court’s order granting leave to amend, arguing lack of appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.
- The Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of collateral-order jurisdiction, applying precepts from Batzel and later Will v. Hallock, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is immediately reviewable under collateral order doctrine. | Greensprings argues denial-for-merits type review. | Attorney defendants contend order conclusively determined leave-to-amend issue. | No collateral-order jurisdiction; order not conclusive. |
| Whether a district court's grant of leave to amend after an anti-SLAPP dismissal is appealable. | Greensprings should be able to appeal the leave-to-amend aspect. | Limited scope of collateral-order review includes only conclusive determinations. | Not appealable under collateral order doctrine. |
| Whether Batzel governs appellate review of anti-SLAPP leave-to-amend orders post-Will. | Batzel should control appellate jurisdiction. | Will limits collateral-order review and undermines Batzel's reach. | Will controls; does not extend collateral-order jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (denial of anti-SLAPP motion to strike is collateral-order appealable when final on merits)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (U.S. 2006) (collateral order doctrine not apply to certain judgments; narrow scope)
- Mindy's Cosmetics v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir.2010) (reaffirms collateral-order approach to anti-SLAPP rulings)
- Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.2010) (discusses collateral-order considerations in anti-SLAPP context)
- Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.2007) (collateral-order doctrine applied to certain anti-SLAPP rulings)