Shahrokh Mireskandari v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.
665 F. App'x 570
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Shahrokh Mireskandari sued Associated Newspapers Ltd. (ANL); ANL moved to strike two claims under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute.
- District court denied part of ANL’s anti‑SLAPP motion, awarded ANL attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c), and imposed sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).
- Mireskandari voluntarily dismissed the federal action after these rulings; the parties proceeded in California state court.
- Mireskandari appealed the fee award and sanctions; ANL appealed the denial of part of its anti‑SLAPP motion (merits appeal).
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the merits appeal became moot after dismissal but reached and affirmed the district court’s awards of attorney’s fees and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of merits appeal | Dismissal moots the appeal; no relief available | ANL: fees claim might survive and reverse of denial could affect fees | Appeal dismissed as moot; attorneys’‑fees ancillary claims do not resuscitate moot controversy |
| Anti‑SLAPP attorney’s fees award | Fees improper because ANL did not prevail on entirety of its motion; award excessive | ANL: on balance successful and entitled to reasonable fees; court has discretion on amount | Fee award affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion and applied a 15% across‑the‑board reduction for overbilling |
| Sanctions under Rule 16 | Dismissal renders sanctions improper for prior scheduling/order violations | ANL: district court may sanction pre‑dismissal conduct | Sanctions affirmed; voluntary dismissal does not preclude sanctions for earlier violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 1996) (attorneys’‑fees claims ancillary to a case survive independently for mootness analysis)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Marina Point Dev. Co., 566 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2009) (fees claims do not revive otherwise moot controversies)
- United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1981) (ancillary fees claims discussion in mootness context)
- Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (permissible approaches to across‑the‑board reductions when supported by explanation)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (standards for reasonable attorney’s‑fee awards)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (sanctions for litigation misconduct may be imposed regardless of later dismissal)