NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FOURTH AGE LIMITED, a United

Kingdom corporation; PRISCILLA

MARY ANNE REUEL TOLKIEN, as

Trustee of the Tolkien Trust, a United

Kingdom Charitable Trust; J.R.R.

TOLING ESTATE LIMITED, a United

Kingdom corporation; HARPERCOLLINS

PUBLISHERS, LTD, a United Kingdom

corporation; UNWIN HYMAN, LTD, a

United Kingdom corporation; GEORGE

ALLEN AND UNWIN PUBLISHER,

LTD, a United Kingdom corporation,

 Plaintiffs-counter-defendants

- Appellants,

 v.

WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT,

INC., a Delaware corporation as successorin-interest to New Line Cinema Corp.;

WARNER BROS DIGITAL

DISTRIBUTION, INC., a division of

Warner Bros Home Entertainment Inc, a

Delaware corporation; WARNER BROS

CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., a

Delaware corporation; SAUL ZAENTZ

COMPANY, a California corporation;

NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., a

No. 13–56392

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09912-ABC-SH

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

OCT 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California corporation,

 Defendants-counter-claimants

- Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD, Senior

District Judge.

*** 

 

This case arises out of the parties’ disagreement about the scope of their

rights under certain contracts. For two years, with each claiming that the other

breached the contracts, the parties attempted to resolve their contract-related

disputes through settlement negotiations and mediation. When the parties’

attempts at resolution proved unsuccessful, Plaintiffs filed suit for breach of

contract. In response, Defendants filed breach-of-contract counterclaims. 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior District Judge for the

U.S. District Court for Northern Florida, sitting by designation.

-2-
Invoking California’s anti-SLAPP statute,

1

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16,

Plaintiffs moved to strike Defendants’ breach-of-contract counterclaims. In their

motion, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants’ counterclaims were filed solely to

punish Plaintiffs for filing their lawsuit, thereby violating the anti-SLAPP statute. 

The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument, recognizing that the lawsuit was a

“routine contract dispute that gave rise to [both] claims and counterclaims . . . [for]

affirmative relief.” According to the district court, Defendants’ contract-related

counterclaims lacked “the hallmark characteristics of SLAPP suits.” 

Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that 

the district court correctly denied Plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

1

 SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are “lawsuits

that masquerade as ordinary lawsuits but are brought to deter common citizens

from exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for doing so.”

Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

-3-