Planned Parenthood Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
890 F.3d 828
9th Cir.2018Background
- Planned Parenthood entities sued Center for Medical Progress (CMP), BioMax, David Daleiden and others alleging fraudulent undercover recordings and related state-law claims; defendants moved to dismiss and to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute.
- District court denied both the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and the anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike; defendants appealed only the denial of the anti‑SLAPP motion.
- District court assumed defendants’ actions were in furtherance of protected speech but concluded Plaintiffs had shown a probability of success on the merits and limited review to pleading adequacy rather than evidentiary challenges.
- Defendants argued anti‑SLAPP required Plaintiffs to present evidence showing a probability of prevailing; Plaintiffs argued that because defendants’ motion attacked only pleading sufficiency, the Rule 12(b)(6) standard controlled and no evidentiary showing was required at that stage.
- Ninth Circuit held that when an anti‑SLAPP motion in federal court challenges only legal sufficiency of the pleadings, courts should apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard; when the motion raises factual challenges, Rule 56 summary‑judgment procedures apply and discovery must be allowed before resolution.
- Applying that rule, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the anti‑SLAPP motion because defendants had framed their motion as a pleading‑stage challenge and plaintiffs’ complaint survived under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper federal standard for anti‑SLAPP motions that challenge pleading sufficiency | Anti‑SLAPP motion framed as legal insufficiency should be reviewed under Rule 12(b)(6); no evidentiary showing required | Anti‑SLAPP requires plaintiff to show probability of prevailing by evidence even at pleading stage | If motion challenges only legal sufficiency, apply federal Rule 12(b)(6) standard (no evidentiary showing required) |
| When anti‑SLAPP motion raises factual challenges | Plaintiffs need not submit evidence absent a factual challenge from defendants | Defendants: factual challenges permit courts to weigh evidence under anti‑SLAPP | When defendants raise factual sufficiency, treat as Rule 56 summary‑judgment; allow discovery and evidentiary record before decision |
| Scope of district court review on defendants’ motion | District court correctly limited itself to pleadings because defendants incorporated 12(b)(6) arguments | Defendants argued district court should have required plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing | Ninth Circuit affirmed that district court properly applied 12(b)(6) where motion attacked pleadings |
| Interlocutory appealability of denial of anti‑SLAPP motion (concurring view) | Plaintiffs: interlocutory review of denial is permissible under prior precedent | Defendants sought interlocutory review; concurrence argued such appeals are improper and burdensome | Majority accepted collateral‑order jurisdiction here; concurrence urged en banc reconsideration and narrower interlocutory review standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Metabolife Intern., Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (anti‑SLAPP analysis requires plaintiff show complaint is legally sufficient and supported by prima facie facts to survive strike)
- Vess v. Ciba‑Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing collateral order doctrine for review of anti‑SLAPP denials)
- Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (anti‑SLAPP motion based on pleading defects should be treated as Rule 12(b)(6))
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (permitting interlocutory appeals from denial of anti‑SLAPP motions under certain circumstances)
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (federal courts must apply Federal Rules 12 and 56 rather than a D.C. anti‑SLAPP procedure)
- Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018) (anti‑SLAPP procedural provisions conflict with Federal Rules and thus may not apply in federal court)
- Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2016) (denial of anti‑SLAPP motion implicates merits and is not collateral for interlocutory appeal)