Needbasedapps, LLC v. Robbins Research International, Inc.
655 F. App'x 541
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- NeedBasedApps (NBA) appealed after the district court granted in part an anti-SLAPP motion by Robbins Research International (RRI), Tony Robbins, and Steven Doyle, striking some but not all of NBA’s claims.
- The district court left several claims pending against the defendants.
- Appellees had earlier cross-appealed unrelated bond orders but voluntarily dismissed those cross-appeals.
- The Ninth Circuit panel considered whether it had appellate jurisdiction over NBA’s appeal from the partial grant of the anti-SLAPP motion.
- The court concluded the order was neither a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor reviewable under the collateral order doctrine.
- The panel also noted NBA failed to comply with FRAP 28(a)(4) by omitting jurisdictional basis and filing dates in its statement of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial grant of an anti-SLAPP motion is a final decision under § 1291 | The partial dismissal is appealable | Order is not final because litigation continues on remaining claims | Not final; no § 1291 jurisdiction because claims remain pending |
| Whether the collateral order doctrine permits immediate appeal of the anti-SLAPP grant | Grant is reviewable now to vindicate immunity-like protections | Grant does not produce irretrievable loss and is fully reviewable after final judgment | Collateral order doctrine does not apply; grant is reviewable on appeal from final judgment |
| Whether procedural defects in NBA’s appellate brief warrant dismissal | NBA did not contest defects | Appellees pointed out FRAP 28(a)(4) noncompliance (no subject-matter jurisdiction basis or filing dates) | Court noted the defect but dismissed appeal on jurisdictional grounds (noncompliance also noted as independent reason) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sareang Ye v. I.N.S., 214 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (we have jurisdiction to decide our own jurisdiction)
- SEC v. Capital Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006) (final-decision test for § 1291 jurisdiction)
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1994) (scope of the collateral order doctrine)
- Greensprings Baptist Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley, 629 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010) (collateral order doctrine requirements)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (U.S. 2006) (three-factor collateral order framework)
- DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., 706 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2013) (anti-SLAPP treated analogously to immunity from suit)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (immunity-from-suit appeals)
- Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1990) (contrast: denial of immunity is appealable; grant is not)
- In re O’Brien, 312 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissing appeals for failure to comply with FRAP 28)
- Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2000) (procedural compliance with appellate briefing requirements)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.