The Royalty Network, Inc. v. Carl Harris
756 F.3d 1351
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Appellants Harris and Phat Groov Music appeal a district court order denying their motion to dismiss a complaint by The Royalty Network, Liwall, and Weber.
- Harris contends Georgia’s anti-SLAPP verification requirement (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1(b)) should apply in federal court, while the district court held it does not.
- The Royalty Network sued Harris and Liwall in New York and Harris filed a Georgia action related to the same consulting agreement with The Royalty Network terminating in 2011.
- Harris created the website theroyaltynetwork.com with statements denouncing the appellees and circulating related documents.
- New York dismissed The Royalty Network’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over Harris; Arizona federal court subsequently dismissed related litigation.
- The instant Northern District of Georgia case was filed on September 6, 2012, alleging defamation and related torts with substantial damages sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine | Harris asserts appealability under collateral order doctrine. | Harris contends the court lacks collateral-order jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction affirmed; order final on collateral grounds. |
| Conflict between § 9-11-11.1(b) and Federal Rule 11 | Rule 11 does not require Georgia verification; state rule conflicts with Fed. Rule. | Harris argues state verification is mandatory and applicable. | § 9-11-11.1(b) conflicts with Rule 11 and does not apply in federal diversity cases. |
| Application of Hanna and Erie in diversity action | Apply state anti-SLAPP verifications in federal court under Erie/Hanna analysis. | Federal Rule 11 governs; state rule should not apply if in conflict. | Hanna analysis supports federal Rule 11 controlling; state rule not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral order doctrine origin)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (collateral order doctrine refinement)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (limits of collateral order review)
- Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (caution on collateral-order exceptions)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (two-part Hanna test for conflict between federal and state law)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (interpretation of Rule 11 and Erie interactions)
- Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir.2001) (Erie and Hanna analytical framework)
- Follenfant v. Rogers, 359 F.2d 30 (5th Cir.1966) (state-verified pleading doctrine in federal court)
- Int’l Brominated Solvents Ass’n v. Am. Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc., No. 5:04 CV 394(DF), 2005 WL 1220850 (M.D. Ga. 2005) (commentary on procedural vs. substantive dispute)
- Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2013) (state anti-SLAPP issue distinguished as collateral from merits)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (irreparable injury from loss of First Amendment rights)