Stephen Wynn v. James Chanos
685 F. App'x 578
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Stephen Wynn and Wynn Resorts sued James Chanos for slander based on statements Chanos made during a university panel discussion about risk and possible FCPA exposure for companies doing business in China.
- Wynn filed a first amended complaint alleging defamatory statements; Chanos moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute.
- The district court granted Chanos’s motions, dismissed the amended complaint, struck the pleading under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, and awarded attorney’s fees to Chanos.
- Wynn appealed, arguing the complaint sufficiently alleged slander and challenging application of California’s anti‑SLAPP law in federal diversity cases.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the amended complaint pleaded a factual assertion actionable as slander under California law and the First Amendment, and whether anti‑SLAPP procedures applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint pleaded actionable slander | Wynn: Chanos’s panel statements accused Wynn of criminal or unlawful conduct and thus were factual and defamatory | Chanos: Statements were opinion, hyperbolic, and not provable false statements of fact | Court: Complaint failed to plead factual assertions necessary for slander; statements were opinion/hyperbole and not provably false |
| Whether anti‑SLAPP statute applies in federal diversity case | Wynn: California anti‑SLAPP should not apply; urged en banc reconsideration of Ninth Circuit precedent | Chanos: Anti‑SLAPP applies; strike warranted and fees recoverable | Court: Bound by Ninth Circuit precedent applying California anti‑SLAPP in federal diversity cases; denied en banc call and affirmed fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Underwager v. Channel 9 Austl., 69 F.3d 361 (opinion vs. factual assertion in defamation law)
- Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (defamation pleading requirements)
- United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 190 F.3d 963 (applying California anti‑SLAPP in federal diversity cases)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (anti‑SLAPP application in federal court)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (First Amendment limits on defamation liability)
- Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147 (contextual analysis of opinion vs. fact)
- Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (context and audience in defamation analysis)