Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.
637 F. App'x 33
2d Cir.2016Background
- Liberty Synergistics sued the Microflo defendants; Microflo counterclaimed and moved to strike Liberty’s complaint under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16).
- The district court (E.D.N.Y.) denied Microflo’s anti‑SLAPP motion as to Liberty’s malicious‑prosecution claim, concluding Liberty demonstrated a probability of success on the merits.
- Microflo appealed the denial under the collateral‑order doctrine seeking immediate review of the anti‑SLAPP denial.
- The Second Circuit evaluated whether the collateral‑order doctrine permitted interlocutory appeal, which requires the order to (1) be conclusive, (2) resolve an important issue separate from the merits, and (3) be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- The Court held the appeal failed the second requirement because review would require examining the parties’ competing evidence and Liberty’s allegations—i.e., review would not be completely separate from the merits.
- The Second Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and declined to reach whether California’s anti‑SLAPP statute applies in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of an anti‑SLAPP motion is immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine | Liberty argued the district court correctly found a probability of success on the malicious‑prosecution claim, so the motion denial was not appealable | Microflo argued the denial was collateral and immediately appealable because it implicated important rights separate from the merits | Denied: appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because resolving the appeal would require merits‑based inquiry and thus is not "completely separate from the merits" |
| Whether appellate review of the denial could avoid examining competing evidence | Liberty maintained the denial rests on probability of success, which is tied to the merits and fact evidence | Microflo contended the question is legal/collateral and thus review need not delve into merits evidence | Held that review would necessarily examine allegations and competing evidence, defeating collateral‑order separation |
| Whether the Court should decide applicability of California’s anti‑SLAPP statute in federal court | Liberty implicitly assumed the statute applies; district court applied it | Microflo also relied on anti‑SLAPP applicability as a basis for appeal | Not reached: Court declined to decide anti‑SLAPP applicability because jurisdictional defect disposed of the appeal |
| Whether prior Second Circuit decision resolved applicability of anti‑SLAPP in federal court | Liberty relied on prior proceedings as supportive of applying the statute | Microflo pointed to prior rulings in related circuits for guidance | Court noted prior Second Circuit opinion expressly declined to decide the issue, so it remains unresolved in this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (prior Second Circuit opinion in the same litigation) (discussing issues but explicitly declining to decide anti‑SLAPP applicability)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir.) (cited in discussion of anti‑SLAPP applicability arguments between circuits)
- U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.) (9th Circuit precedent on anti‑SLAPP in federal court cited for comparison)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 736 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.) (case addressing anti‑SLAPP issues and appellate approaches)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (governing Erie‑based analysis of when federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state rules)