P6 LA Mf Holdings SPE, LLC v. Shekhter, 092518 FED9, 17-55924

Docket Nº:17-55924
Party Name:P6 LA MF HOLDINGS SPE, LLC, a limited liability company; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEIL SHEKHTER, as an individual and as Trustee of The NMS Family Living Trust dated September 3, 1991; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judge Panel:Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 25, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

P6 LA MF HOLDINGS SPE, LLC, a limited liability company; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

NEIL SHEKHTER, as an individual and as Trustee of The NMS Family Living Trust dated September 3, 1991; et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-55924

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 25, 2018

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted August 8, 2018

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*] and ORDER

Neil Shekhter, Margot Shekhter, NMS Properties, Inc., and NMS Capital Partners I, LLC (collectively NMS) appeal the district court's denial of their special motion to strike under California Civil Procedure Code § 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). NMS sought to strike tortious interference and slander of title claims brought by P6 LA MF Holdings SPE, LLC, et. al. (collectively AEW). AEW's complaint alleges several claims against NMS based on a series of letters NMS sent to dozens of third parties informing them of the dispute surrounding their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and in some cases, threatening litigation. NMS argues that AEW's claims are based on a related litigation regarding whether NMS forged two versions of the JVA. We review de novo a district court's denial of a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute. Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.1

1. AEW contends that we lack jurisdiction to review NMS's interlocutory appeal. We disagree. Under the collateral order doctrine, we have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to strike made pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute. See DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp., 706 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating standards for immediately appealable orders). AEW's argument that we lack jurisdiction because our decision will resolve questions "necessarily intertwined" with the merits of its federal RICO claim is foreclosed by Batzel. Id. at 1025 ("Denial of an anti-SLAPP motion resolves a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP