637 F.3d 937
9th Cir.2011Background
- Liysa Northon killed her husband Christopher Northon; Liysa admitted guilt to first-degree manslaughter in Oregon.
- Northon family members filed defamation/false light suit in Oregon against Ann Rule and publishers.
- Defendants removed to federal district court and moved to dismiss under Oregon anti-SLAPP statute, Or.Rev.Stat. § 31.150 et seq.
- District court granted the special motion to strike and dismissed without prejudice; Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal.
- Defendants moved for attorneys’ fees under Or.Rev.Stat. § 31.152(3); fee issues raised whether state or federal law governs.
- This panel held Oregon law governs the award of attorneys’ fees on appeal, applying Erie principles, and awarded $21,253.53.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs appellate attorneys’ fees under anti-SLAPP? | Northon argues federal law applies to fee award. | Rule argues Oregon law governs fee recovery on appeal. | Oregon law governs the fee award. |
| Is applying Oregon anti-SLAPP fees on appeal connected to the substance of the case for Erie purposes? | Northon contends federal principles should apply. | Rule contends state anti-SLAPP fee provisions are applicable under Erie. | Oregon fee provision applies under Erie; substantive rights protected. |
| Are the requested appellate fees reasonable and awardable under Oregon law? | Northon did not object to hours/rates; challenge focuses on law. | Fees requested are reasonable under Oregon statute. | Fees awarded; amount: $21,253.53. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Seydel, 961 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (Erie-based articulation of substantive-law treatment of fees)
- United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (California anti-SLAPP-like fee framework protecting substantive rights)
- Englert v. MacDonell, 551 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2009) (Oregon anti-SLAPP statute modeled after California’s)
- Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (anti-SLAPP motion framework and fee-shifting guidance)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. USA, 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (antislapp protections and public-interest considerations)