Hyan v. Hummer, No. 14-56155 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that they prevented him from collecting on a California state court legal malpractice judgment. The district court granted Defendant Hummer's motion to strike plaintiff's claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order is not a "final decision" over which the court may exercise appellate jurisdiction. Under the Erie doctrine, it is long since settled that federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Rule 54(b), which the court must apply, clearly states that the order on appeal here is not final. The court also concluded that the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
Court Description: Anti-SLAPP. The panel dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction an appeal challenging the district court’s order granting a motion to strike claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arising from an underlying California state court legal malpractice action. The panel held that the order granting an anti-SLAPP motion was not a “final decision” over which the court could exercise jurisdiction because the order dismissed two of the defendants, but one defendant remained in district court. The panel held that although the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is treated as final in California courts, under the Erie doctrine federal courts sitting in diversity apply federal procedural law, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) clearly states that the order on appeal here is not final. The panel also held that the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is HYAN V. HUMMER 3 not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine because the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is fully reviewable on appeal from final judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.