Urbano

Urbano v. Timberlake

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 202424-652California703 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE, No. 24-652 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-04512-FLA-E Defendant - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

JOHN URBANO,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, OWENS, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Justin Timberlake (“Timberlake”) challenges the district court’s

denial of his motion (“Motion”) under California’s anti-SLAPP statute codified in

California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16 (“anti-SLAPP”). As the parties are

familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.