Wigington
Wigington v. MacMartin
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] Dane Wigington dba Geoengineering Watch, No. 2:21-cv-02355-KJM-DMC Plaintiff, ORDER v. Douglas MacMartin, Defendant. 16 Defendant Dr. Douglas MacMartin moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and 18 failure to state a claim, and also moves to strike based on California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Am. Mem. P. & A. Mot. Dismiss & Mot. Strike (Mot.) at 8, ECF No. 10.’ Plaintiff Dane Wigington opposes both motions, and the matter is fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 16; Reply, ECF No. 20; Reply, ECF No. 19. The court submitted this matter on the papers. Minute Order, ECF No. 18. For the reasons below, the court grants defendant’s motions to dismiss and strike, and awards attorneys’ fees to Dr. MacMartin.
' When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system.