Shirley Sherrod v. Andrew Breitbart
405 U.S. App. D.C. 395
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Sherrod sued defendants (including O’Connor and Breitbart) in D.C.; case in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendants filed a motion under the D.C. Anti‑SLAPP Act (effective March 31, 2011) seeking dismissal; statute requires such a motion within 45 days of service.
- Sherrod was served Feb 12, 2011, so the 45‑day window expired March 29, 2011; defendants filed their anti‑SLAPP motion April 18, 2011.
- Defendants had obtained a district court order granting a 30‑day extension to answer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (a consent motion), but did not mention the Anti‑SLAPP Act in that motion.
- District court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion as untimely and also reasoned the D.C. statute did not apply in federal court under Erie and was not retroactive; defendants appealed.
- Court of Appeals assumed appellate jurisdiction (collateral order doctrine) and affirmed solely on the Rule 6(b)/statutory‑deadline ground: Rule 6(b) cannot extend statutory filing deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction to hear interlocutory denial of anti‑SLAPP motion | Sherrod argued no immediate appeal; denial not collateral order | Defendants invoked collateral order doctrine to appeal now | Court assumed jurisdiction for decision but did not decide the jurisdictional question finally |
| Whether the D.C. Anti‑SLAPP 45‑day filing period applied and was tolled/extended by district court’s Rule 6(b) order | Sherrod argued defendants’ anti‑SLAPP motion was untimely because the 45‑day statutory period elapsed before filing | Defendants argued the district court’s Rule 6(b) extension to answer extended the anti‑SLAPP filing deadline | Held: Rule 6(b) cannot extend statutory time limits; motion was untimely and denial affirmed |
| Whether Erie or other federal principles barred application of D.C. Anti‑SLAPP in diversity federal court | Sherrod contended Erie might preclude applying D.C. statute in federal court | Defendants did not press a separate Erie argument below; both sides assumed the 45‑day period applied | Court did not resolve Erie issue; assumed statute governed for purposes of decision |
| Whether defendants could rely on later extension or other equitable tolling to salvage timeliness | Sherrod opposed any equitable tolling/second extension after deadline | Defendants sought relief via subsequent motions/extensions | Court rejected extension; later extension filed after statutory deadline could not revive the untimely motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (establishes Erie doctrine regarding state law in federal diversity cases)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (defines collateral order doctrine)
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (clarifies collateral order requirements)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (treated California anti‑SLAPP protection as substantive immunity in diversity cases)
- Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 693 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.) (distinguished anti‑SLAPP statutes that do not create immunity from trial)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (found collateral‑order review where state anti‑SLAPP conflicted with federal rules)
- Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press, L.L.C., 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir.) (permitted immediate appeal of denial under Louisiana anti‑SLAPP as protecting right not to stand trial)
- Argentine Republic v. Nat’l Grid Plc, 637 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir.) (held Rule 6(b) may not extend statutory deadlines)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (discusses obligation to determine jurisdiction before merits)
- Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524 (permits assuming jurisdiction when merits are foreordained by precedent)