Z. F. v. Ripon Unified School District
482 F. App'x 239
9th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs appeal district court's denial of their anti-SLAPP motion to strike.
- Erie doctrine governs federal adjudication of California anti-SLAPP law and potential conflicts with FRCP.
- Court determined certain CA anti-SLAPP procedural provisions conflict with FRCP and cannot be applied in federal court.
- Because the motion challenged legal sufficiency, the district court treated it under Rule 12 (not as a summary judgment).
- Plaintiffs argued Defendants were limited-purpose public figures; court analyzed whether defendants thrust themselves into the public controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard under Erie and Rule 12 for the anti-SLAPP motion | Plaintiffs rely on Rule 12 standard | Defendants contend to apply Rule 12 standard | Rule 12 standard applied |
| Whether defendants are limited-purpose public figures | Plaintiffs claim Defendants thrust into public controversy | Defendants argue not public figures | Defendants not limited-purpose public figures; pleading standard not heightened |
Key Cases Cited
- Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (Erie analysis; conflicts with FRCP)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (direct collision with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (materials attached to counter-complaint may be considered on Rule 12 motion)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (limited purpose public figures standard)
- Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 443 U.S. 157 (1979) (private individuals are not automatically public figures)