Lexplug logoLexplug

Dc Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
706 F.3d 1009 (2013)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An order denying a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the statute creates an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability, and the protection of constitutional speech rights constitutes a sufficiently important public interest to warrant interlocutory review.


Facts:

  • Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster created the character Superman in the mid-1930s.
  • On March 1, 1938, Siegel and Shuster conveyed exclusive rights to Superman to Detective Comics, the predecessor of DC Comics.
  • Superman became a globally recognized character featured in numerous media formats.
  • The heirs of Siegel and Shuster began efforts under the 1976 Copyright Act to terminate the original copyright transfer and reclaim ownership.
  • The heirs entered into an arrangement with attorney Marc Toberoff and his companies to assist in their copyright termination efforts and to jointly develop future Superman works.
  • DC Comics claims that the actions of the heirs and Toberoff interfered with its contractual relations and prospective economic advantage related to the Superman character.

Procedural Posture:

  • DC Comics filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court against the heirs of Superman's creators, Marc Toberoff, and his companies, alleging several state law claims.
  • The defendants filed a special motion to strike DC's state law claims for intentional interference and unfair competition pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute.
  • The district court judge denied the motion to strike.
  • The defendants (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • DC Comics (appellee) moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from the district court's order.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the collateral order doctrine permit an immediate, interlocutory appeal of a district court's order denying a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, even after the Supreme Court's decision in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter?


Opinions:

Majority - Reinhardt

Yes, the collateral order doctrine permits an immediate appeal. The denial of a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute remains immediately appealable because the statute functions as an immunity from suit, which would be effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court's decision in Mohawk Industries did not overrule the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Batzel v. Smith. The court's analysis hinges on the third prong of the collateral order doctrine test: effective unreviewability. Mohawk clarified that this prong is met when delaying review would 'imperil a substantial public interest' or 'some particular value of a high order.' The court reasons that California's anti-SLAPP statute provides an immunity from suit, not just a defense to liability, a conclusion supported by the statute's text and legislative history explicitly providing for immediate appeals in state court to protect defendants from the costs and burdens of the trial itself. The court holds that protecting the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of free speech and petition is a 'value of a high order,' and this interest would be imperiled without the availability of an interlocutory appeal. This distinguishes California's statute from other states' anti-SLAPP laws that, at the time of prior decisions, did not provide a clear right to immediate appeal and were thus treated as defenses to liability rather than immunities from suit.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and solidifies the procedural strength of California's anti-SLAPP statute in federal court, even after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the collateral order doctrine in Mohawk Industries. By characterizing the statute as conferring an 'immunity from suit' linked to the 'high order' value of First Amendment rights, the court ensures that defendants can immediately appeal denials and potentially halt costly litigation aimed at chilling speech early on. This creates a significant procedural advantage for defendants in the Ninth Circuit facing state-law claims that implicate speech or petitioning activity, reinforcing the substantive power of state anti-SLAPP protections within the federal court system.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Dc Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation (2013) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Dc Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation