Filed March 28, 2016
This is a “low bar.” Roberts, 660 F.3d at 1163; Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2010) (“required probability that [a party] will prevail need not be high.”).
Filed March 10, 2015
Dated: March 10, 2015 MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP By /s/ Kevin K. Eng Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 State court decisions that are not selected for publication may be cited in federal courts. Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, 599 F.3d 946, 956 n.13 (9th Cir. 2010); Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1167, n.6 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Granite State Ins. Co., 330 F.3d 1214, 1220 n. 8 (9th Cir.2003)). Case3:13-cv-03570-RS Document62 Filed03/10/15 Page20 of 20
Filed February 27, 2015
Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 24 Filed 02/27/15 Page 13 of 38 11 7688352v.2 The policy reasons underlying the single publication rule are apparent: otherwise, an individual could be subjected to indefinite liability and the statute of limitations would provide no repose at all. See Roberts, 660 F.3d at 1167 (explaining that the problem with a theory extending the statute of limitations “is that it undermines the single-publication rule” which is “designed to provide repose to defendants by precluding stale claims based on dated but still-lingering mass communications”); see also Haberman v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 201, 216 (D. Mass. 1986). The Washington Post’s reference to a statement that was made almost ten years earlier does not revive the statute of limitations.
Filed January 28, 2013
Under step 2, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the challenged claims.” Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). That burden must be met through competent admissible evidence.