25 Cited authorities

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
518 U.S. 415 (1996) Cited 2,363 times
Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)
Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.
559 U.S. 393 (2010) Cited 1,187 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"
Rusheen v. Cohen
37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,164 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment
Taus v. Loftus
40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) Cited 780 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a published article and the investigation conducted in connection with the article, including an interview, constituted protected activity
Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods
480 U.S. 1 (1987) Cited 354 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a conflict exists where, "when fairly construed, the scope of [a Rule] is ‘sufficiently broad’ to cause a ‘direct collision’ with the state law or, implicitly, to ‘control the issue’ before the court, thereby leaving no room for the operation of that law"
Batzel v. Smith
333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 365 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is appealable under § 1291
McMahan v. Toto
256 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 211 times
Holding that "It is clear that statutes allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees are substantive for Erie[ R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] purposes."
U.S. v. Lockheed Missiles Space Co., Inc.
190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 207 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a similar motion to strike under California state law applies in federal court
McMahan v. Toto
311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 185 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 768.79 is substantive for Erie purposes
Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.
718 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 128 times
Holding that a district court order regarding the applicability of a state anti-SLAPP statute in federal court was completely separate from the merits
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,666 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 333,491 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,498 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 Cited 2,914 times 110 Legal Analyses
Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

Ranbaxy Laboratories Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"

Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

Holding that a published article and the investigation conducted in connection with the article, including an interview, constituted protected activity

Holding a conflict exists where, "when fairly construed, the scope of [a Rule] is ‘sufficiently broad’ to cause a ‘direct collision’ with the state law or, implicitly, to ‘control the issue’ before the court, thereby leaving no room for the operation of that law"

Holding that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is appealable under § 1291

Holding that "It is clear that statutes allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees are substantive for Erie[ R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] purposes."

Holding that a similar motion to strike under California state law applies in federal court

Holding that § 768.79 is substantive for Erie purposes

Holding that a district court order regarding the applicability of a state anti-SLAPP statute in federal court was completely separate from the merits

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees