Shalaby

MEMORANDUM **

Andrew W. Shalaby appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Ira Jacobowitz. We affirm.

(1) Shalaby first contends that the district court erred when it dismissed the declaratory relief action in which he sought to have California’s anti-SLAPP law 1 declared unconstitutional. We agree with the district court that Jacobowitz is not a person who can be forced to defend this general assault on the anti-SLAPP law. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 , 117 S.Ct. 1055, 1067 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997); Pinhas v. Summit Health, Ltd., 894 F.2d 1024, 1034-35 (9th Cir.1989). The supposed dispute between Jacobowitz and Shalaby is purely hypothetical, academic and abstract (the latter might sue the former who, in turn, might seek to use the anti-SLAPP law against the latter). See Arizonans, 520 U.S. at 64 , 117 S.Ct. at 1067 ; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 464 , 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 575 , 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2144 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 61-62, 64-65 , 106 S.Ct. 1697, 1703, 1704-05 , 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986). The…