Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc.

Good Law
57 F. Supp. 2d 973·1999 WL 528154·28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11339
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1999CV98-6326DDP(BQRx)California7,008 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ROGERS’S APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT NATIONAL ENQUIRER’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff Mimi Rogers has brought a libel action against defendants. Defendant National Enquirer has filed a special motion to strike Rogers’s complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. Rogers has made an ex parte application to continue the hearing on the special motion so that she can pursue discovery. Early consideration of National Enquirer’s motion would contradict the scheme of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore run afoul of the Erie doctrine. The Court therefore grants Rogers’s application.

I. Background

On June 2, 1998, National Enquirer published an article containing certain statements about Rogers. (Compl. at ¶ 13.) Rogers brought a libel action against the Home Shopping Network and National Enquirer, alleging that both defendants knew the statements in the article were false.

National Enquirer filed a special motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. Under § 425.16, Rogers must show “a probability that [she] will prevail on the claim.” Id. at § 425.16(b)(1). Otherwise, the section…

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.