Kiana Mitchell v. Brett Hood
614 F. App'x 137
5th Cir.2015Background
- Kiana Mitchell lost a Louisiana judicial runoff to Judge Ernestine Anderson–Trahan by 266 votes; a postcard attacking Mitchell was mailed the day before the election and listed “Paid for by B. Hood.”
- Mitchell sued Brett Hood in federal court alleging abuse of right claims based on the postcard; Hood denied involvement and later asserted lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Hood impleaded Judge Anderson–Trahan (and Kelvin McClinton) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14, alleging she was responsible for placing Hood’s name on the postcard and asserting independent claims (fraud, misrepresentation, identity theft, etc.).
- Anderson–Trahan moved to dismiss under Louisiana’s anti‑SLAPP statute (La. Code Civ. P. art. 971) and sought interlocutory appeal; district court stayed limited discovery and certified questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The Fifth Circuit examined whether impleader under Rule 14 was proper and whether Anderson–Trahan could remain as a third‑party defendant (thus invoking Article 971); the court limited its analysis to Rule 14 compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mitchell) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson–Trahan/Hood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 14 allowed impleader of Anderson–Trahan | Impleader improper because Anderson–Trahan was not originally sued and had denied involvement | Hood: impleader proper to hold Anderson–Trahan liable to Hood for harms Hood suffered from having his name used | Impleader improper — third‑party liability was not contingent on outcome of the main claim, so Rule 14 did not authorize her joinder |
| Whether a third‑party defendant who denies involvement may invoke Louisiana’s anti‑SLAPP law in federal court | Mitchell: Anderson–Trahan cannot invoke Article 971 because she denies making the statements and was not a proper third‑party | Anderson–Trahan: may raise Article 971 to strike the third‑party complaint | Court did not decide — unnecessary because third‑party joinder was improper |
| Whether a third‑party defendant may assert defenses on behalf of the original defendant | Mitchell: third‑party status improper; defenses not available if not properly impleaded | Anderson–Trahan: as impleaded party may assert any defense Hood could raise | Court did not decide — dismissed Anderson–Trahan on Rule 14 grounds first |
| Whether limited discovery to identify the postcard speaker was permissible before ruling on Article 971 | Mitchell: discovery appropriate to determine speaker and jurisdiction | Anderson–Trahan: limited discovery improper; sought immediate appellate review | Court found the question moot after holding impleader improper and did not resolve it |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press, L.L.C., 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir.) (state anti‑SLAPP procedural application in federal court reviewed under state law)
- Bellaire Gen. Hosp. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 97 F.3d 822 (5th Cir.) (interpretation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Joe Grasso & Son, Inc., 380 F.2d 749 (5th Cir.) (impleader requires third‑party liability to be dependent on outcome of main claim)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir.) (discussion that a state anti‑SLAPP statute may apply in federal court)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (state anti‑SLAPP statute considered compatible with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., L.L.C., 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir.) (express disagreement among circuits on applicability of state anti‑SLAPP laws in federal court)