In DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp., the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the rule that an order ruling on a motion made pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute is immediately appealable in federal court.
In the search for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, Superman has left a trail of litigation in his jet stream. This case is one of many in a line of attempts to terminate DC Comics’ right to Superman copyrights. Since selling exclusive rights to the superhero in 1938, the creators and their heirs have disputed DC’s ownership. In the current case, the heirs hired an attorney to assist them in terminating the transfer of copyrights to DC, with a plan to develop future Superman works with the lawyer and his company.
DC filed a lawsuit, claiming that the heirs and their attorney tortiously interfered with their ownership rights to Superman in repudiating their agreements and economic relationships with the company. The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the district court denied because defendants failed to show that any of DC’s claims arose from conduct falling within the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute.
The heirs appealed the district courts’ grant of the motion to strike and the 9th Circuit reviewed. First, the circuit court addressed whether it had authority to hear the motion. DC argued that U.S. Supreme Court’s case Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter overruled the 9th Circuit’s decision in Batzel v. Smith, which established anti-SLAPP motions as immediately appealable in federal court. DC argued that under Mohawk, a ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion did not qualify as a final judgment subject to the appellate court’s limited scope of review.
The 9th Circuit rejected DC’s argument and upheld the Batzel rule, reaffirming that anti-SLAPP suits are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court noted that in a diversity action, where a federal court applies state law, it must strive to accomplish the goals of state law at issue. A central element of California’s anti-SLAPP legislation is to allow immediate judicial review, and this right to appeal is central to the statute’s purpose.
In a companion unpublished order, the court concluded that it had proper jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to strike because the anti-SLAPP statute did not protect DC’s activity.