Breazeale v. Victim Services, No. 15-16549 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that VSI's practices violated state law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the district court's denial of VSI's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, because under the terms of the state statute, such a denial in a case deemed to be filed in the public interest was not immediately appealable. The panel held that it did have jurisdiction over VSI's appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration and affirmed the denial because this was not a private contract subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Jurisdiction / Arbitration. In an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California consumer protection law, the panel: (1) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to strike claims under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, and (2) affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to an agreement with the district attorney’s office, defendants sent notices to plaintiffs that to avoid criminal prosecution under California’s bad check statute, they could participate in California’s bad check diversion program, including payment of specified fees. The notices included an arbitration clause. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion BREAZEALE V. VICTIM SERVICES 3 because, under the terms of the state statute, such a denial in a case deemed to be filed in the public interest is not immediately appealable. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of arbitration as to a plaintiff who elected to participate in the diversion program because the diversion program agreement was not a private or commercial contract subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act.
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.