Skybanr Media Group, Inc. v. Generation Capital Associates

The defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike state claims from plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to the California Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 1085 , 124 S.Ct. 2812 , 159 L.Ed.2d 246 (2004), and affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary to this decision.

The defendants argue that the district court improperly allowed plaintiffs to “amend around” their anti-SLAPP motion to strike and therefore erred in denying the motion to strike. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on the motion to strike. United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir.1999). Plaintiffs had the right to amend their complaint once “as a matter of course” before the defendants filed their answer, even though an anti-SLAPP motion was pending. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Comms. Co., 377 F.3d 1081 , 1090-91 (9th Cir.2004) (“granting a defendant’s anti-SLAPP…