Dc Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation

MEMORANDUM

Defendants Pacific Pictures Corporation et al. (“defendants”) bring this interlocutory appeal challenging the district judge’s denial of their motion to strike, pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 , the fourth, fifth, and sixth claims brought by plaintiff DC Comics (“DC”) in its First Amended Complaint. As explained in the contemporaneously-filed opinion, we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The district judge properly held that DC’s claims were not “based on” defendants’ protected activity. In re Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 275 , 198 P.3d 66, 73 (2009). DC’s fourth and fifth claims arise from the heirs’ repudiation, at Toberoffs apparent urging, of their agreements or economic relationships with DC. Neither the heirs’ repudiation nor Toberoffs alleged inducement itself constitutes protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute. We reject defendants contentions that DC’s claims involve protected conduct simply because (1) protected conduct may have been the ultimate motivation for, or eventual result of, the repudiation, or (2) an attorney may have induced…