Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.
718 F.3d 138
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- This case originated in California state court, later removed to the Central District of California, then transferred to the Eastern District of New York under §1404(a).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under California’s anti-SLAPP statute before transfer; that motion was denied by the NY court after transfer, which held NY law governs the substantive claim.
- The District Court treated California’s anti-SLAPP rule as inapplicable post-transfer because NY substantive law governs the malicious-prosecution claim.
- The sole issues on appeal concern interlocutory collateral-order jurisdiction and the proper Erie/choice-of-law analysis for applying California’s anti-SLAPP rule.
- The panel held that (1) the order is immediately appealable under collateral-order doctrine, and (2) California’s anti-SLAPP rule can apply despite the transfer because it is procedural in California and may be treated as substantive for Erie purposes under Ferens, so the District Court erred in concluding inapplicability.
- The matter is remanded for further district-court consideration consistent with these rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the denial of the California anti-SLAPP motion an immediately appealable collateral-order decision? | Liberty contends collateral-order jurisdiction exists. | Microflo argues no collateral-order jurisdiction. | Yes; the order satisfies collateral-order criteria and is appealable. |
| Does California’s anti-SLAPP rule apply after forum transfer when NY law governs the merits under Erie? | Liberty argues California rule remains applicable as a procedural remedy. | Microflo contends NY law governs and precludes CA anti-SLAPP | California’s anti-SLAPP rule can apply post-transfer; the district court erred in conflating state-law procedural rules with Erie’s substantive analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (U.S. 2006) (collateral-order three-prong test for appealability)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1990) (transfer of venue does not change governing law for purposes of determining state rules of decision)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (Erie doctrine: apply state substantive law and federal procedural law in diversity)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (apply state choice-of-law rules in diversity cases)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (substantive vs. procedural in Erie analysis; state rule can be substantive for outcome)