Case ID: f-appx_673/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen John SIMONI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MEDIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56558
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed January 20, 2017
    Stephen John Simoni, Pro Se
    Kelli L. Sager, Esquire, Attorney, Jonathan L. Segal, Esquire, Davis Wright Tre-maine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Beylkin, Esquire, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, Denver, CO, Jay Ward Brown, Attorney, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen John Simoni, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his diversity action arising from defendant’s publication of an article. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to strike under California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Policy (“anti-SLAPP”) statute. Manufactured Home Cmts., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 655 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted defendant’s special motion under California’s anti-SLAPP statute to strike Simoni’s state law claims because Simoni’s claims were based on protected activity and Simo-ni’s failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits, as defendant’s speech was not commercial. See Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining two-prong test for anti-SLAPP motion); see also Dex Media W., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 696 F.3d 952, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth analysis to determine whether speech is commercial).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Simoni’s action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Simoni’s contention that the award of attorney’s fees should be reversed.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.