Z. F. v. Ripon Unified School District

MEMORANDUM

M.A.F., J.A., and Special Needs Advocates for Understanding (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP motion to strike. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the par ties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court applied the proper analysis to the motion to strike. Federal court adjudication of a state law anti-SLAPP motion implicates the Erie doctrine. Metabolife Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 , 845 (9th Cir.2001). Specifically, “[procedural state laws are not used in federal court if to do so would result in a ‘direct collision’ with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.” Id. (quoting Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 749-50 , 100 S.Ct. 1978 , 64 L.Ed.2d 659 (1980)). Accordingly, we have held that certain procedural provisions of California’s anti-SLAPP statute conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and cannot be applied in federal court. Id. at 846 .

These actual and potential conflicts between California’s anti-SLAPP procedural provisions and the federal rules result in a threshold inquiry:…