California Appellate Tracker

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress

May 27, 2018

In federal court, an Anti-SLAPP motion based on purely legal arguments is analyzed under the motion to dismiss standards, while an Anti-SLAPP motion challenging the factual support for plaintiff’s claims is governed by summary judgment standards and the plaintiff must be allowed discovery.

If a defendant makes an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike founded on purely legal arguments, then the analysis is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12 standards; if it is a factual challenge, then the motion must be treated as though it were a motion for summary judgment and discovery must be permitted. Here, the district court did not err in finding that the complaint satisfied Rule 8 and 12 standards thus establishing that plaintiff had a probability of success on the merits. Also, it did not err in refusing to consider the factual sufficiency of the complaint at the pleading stage. A two-judge concurrence calls on the Ninth Circuit to overrule its precedent permitting an interlocutory appeal from the denial of an Anti-SLAPP motion.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Gould, J.; Gould & Murguria, JJ., concurring); May 16, 2018; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12649

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson