Daily Blast June 15, 2016

Here is a case that might be of interest to federal court litigators. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Hyan v. Hummer, No. 14-56155 __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. June 14, 2016), analyzing whether it had jurisdiction to review an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion to strike while other claims were still pending in district court. The court held it did not have jurisdiction because an order adjudicating “‘the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties’” is not appealable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(b).  Slip opn., at 6 (emphasis omitted).

Hyan, a former client at Rutter Hobbes and Davidson law firm, sued the firm and multiple employees including Hummer for malpractice in California court. Id. at 4. The case was removed to federal court. Id. at 5. Hummer filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Hyan’s claims, which the district court granted. Id. Hyan appealed, while his claims as to the remaining defendants continued in the district court. Id.

The Ninth Circuit held it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. Id. at 4. The court reasoned that while an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion is appealable under California law, an order adjudicating the rights of fewer than all parties is not a final appealable order under federal law. Id. at 5-6; see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The court further held that “the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is fully reviewable on appeal from final judgment.” Id. at 8. For this reason, both the California 60-day appeal deadline for anti-SLAPP grants and the federal “collateral order doctrine” were inapplicable. Id. at 7-8.  Hyan would be fully able to pursue review of the anti-SLAPP grant on appeal from the final judgment. Id. at 9.

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate