By Josephine Petrick & Breana Burgos

2019 was another active year for federal appellate anti-SLAPP opinions. Most notably, the circuit split deepened over whether state anti-SLAPP laws even apply in federal court.

Despite an earlier trend of federal courts applying state anti-SLAPP laws under Erie, recent decisions may reflect a new trend toward limiting or even eradicating the application of state anti-SLAPP laws in federal court—even in the Ninth Circuit.  Given the current robust circuit split and many intracircuit tensions discussed below, this is an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court or en banc circuit courts may be called on to resolve in the months and years to come.  These developments are a further testament as to why Congress should consider enacting a federal anti-SLAPP law.  Here’s an overview of the current circuit split and recent developments in 2019.

Amicus briefs are often thought of as limited to appellate courts. However, they can be useful in federal district court, too. District courts have inherent authority to allow amici curiae to participate in briefing. See, e.g., NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

Benefits to Amici in District Court

Potential amici are likely to be interested in the broader impact on the law, especially when the case involves novel legal questions or pertains to an issue of public interest. Paul M. Collins, Jr., Who Participates as Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals?, 94 Judicature 128, 134 (2010). Amici may provide new perspectives and educate the court about the broader consequences its ruling may have.

If you’re litigating a putative class action in federal court and get a class certification order that is adverse to your client (whether plaintiff or defense), you may petition to take an immediate appeal of that order.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The petition to appeal must be filed quickly—within 14 days.  Id.  The short turnaround time “is designed to reduce the risk that attempted appeals will disrupt continuing proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), Adv. Comm. Note (1998).

California practitioners generally know that they cannot cite or rely upon unpublished or depublished California opinions in California courts, except when relevant to law of the case, res judicata, etc.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a).)  Violations of the “no-citation rule” can even be sanctionable. (People v. Williams (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1529; Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 869, 885-886.)

Recently, though, there has been an underground debate as to whether the judicial notice statute, Evid. Code, § 452(d)(1), might trump Rule 8.1115. (See Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 212, 218, fn. 14; Rafi Moghadam, Judge Nullification: A Perception of Unpublished Opinions (2011) 62 Hastings L.J. 1397; Scott Talkov, Citing Unpublished Opinions: The Conflict Between the No-Citation Rule and Judicial Notice, California Litigation Attorney Blog.)

The California Rules of Court allow superior courts to use  a tentative ruling procedure in law and motion matters. (See CRC 3.1308.) Many attorneys assume that they must contest an adverse tentative ruling to preserve their objections for appeal. While there may be good reasons to contest, it is not necessarily mandatory.

It is not “invited error” to submit on a tentative ruling. (Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401 (“Mundy”); see Jon B. Eisenberg et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs ¶ 8:248.12 (“Rutter”).) The doctrine of invited error is based on a principle of estoppel; it “prevents a party from misleading the trial court and then profiting therefrom in the appellate court.” (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403.) But so long as a litigant asserts an issue in the trial court and does not actively invite error, the issue is preserved for appeal. (Mundy, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1405-1406; Rutter, supra, ¶ 8:248.12.)