NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
SHAHR OKH M IR E SKANDAR I, ) No. 13-56858 ) Pla intiff-Appe lle e , ) D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02943-M M M -SS ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) ASSOC IATED NEW SPAPER S, ) LTD.; DAVID GAR

DNER , )

) De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts, ) ) SHAHR OKH M IR E SKANDAR I, ) No. 14-56438 ) Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02943-M M M -SS

) v. ) ) ASSOC IATED NEW SPAPER S, ) LTD.; DAVID GAR

DNER , )

) De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s , ) ) SHAHR OKH M IR E SKANDAR I, ) No. 14-56911 ) Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02943-M M M -SS

) v. ) ) 

# FIL ED OCT 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.ASSOC IATED NEW SPAPER S, )

LTD.; DAVID GAR

DNER , )

) De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s , ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M argare t M
. M orrow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 3, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : RE INHARDT, FER N ANDEZ, a

n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Assoc iate d Ne w spa

pe rs Ltd. a

nd Da vid Ga rdne r (c olle c tive ly , “ ANL” )
a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of the ir m otion to strike two c l a im s in Sha

hrokh M ire ska n da ri’ s First Am e nde d C om

pla int pursua

nt to C a lifornia ’ s a

nti-SLAPP 1 sta tute . Se e C a l. C ode C iv. Proc . § 425.16(b)(1). For his pa rt, M ire ska

nda ri
a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ward of attorne y ’ s fe e s to ANL unde r the anti-SLAPP sta tute 2 and its a

ward of sa

nc tions a ga i nst him
. 3 W e dism iss No. 13-56858 (“ the

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

1 SLAPP is the a c ronym

for “ strate gic la

wsuit a ga i nst publicpa

rtic ipation.” Hilton v . Hallmark

C ards , 599 F.3d 894, 899 n.1 (9th C ir. 2010).
2 C a l. C iv. Proc . C o d e § 425.16(c ).
3 Se e Fe d . R
. C iv. P. 16(f)(2). 2m e rits a

ppe a l” ) a nd a ffirm Nos. 14-56438 a

nd 14-56911. (1) M ire ska

nda ri a sse rts tha

t the m e rits a

ppe a l is now m oot be c a

u se he ha s volunta

rily dism isse d the a c tion in the distric t c ourt. W e a gre e . While we did have inte rloc utory

jurisdic tion ove r the m e rits a ppe a l, 4 the unde rly ing a c tion wa s subse q ue ntly dism isse d, a

n d the re is no re l ie f that

we c o uld now gra

nt on the
m e rits. 5 In fa c t, the pa

rtie s inform

us tha t the c a se is now proc e e d ing in the C a lifornia c ourts. ANL doe s not dispute

the a bove , 6 e xc e pt, it a

rgue s, tha t it m ight be e ntitle d to a d ditiona l a

nti-SLAPP attorne y ’ s fe e s if the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a portion of its m otion we re re ve rse d. Howe ve r, we have m a de it c le ar that “ ‘ [c ] la im s for
attorne y s’ fe e s a

nc i lla ry to [a ] c a se survive inde pe nde ntly ’ ” and tha t “ [t] h e
e xiste nc e of a

n attorne y s’ fe e s c la im

thus doe s not re susc ita

te an othe rwise m oot
c ontrove rsy .” C

amme rme y e r , 97 F.3d a

t 1238; se e also C

tr. for Biological Div e rsity v . Marina Point Dev . C

o. , 566 F.3d 794, 805–06 (9th C ir. 2009) a nd

4 Se e Batze l v . Smith , 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003).
5 Se e C a m me rme y e r v . Pe rry , 97 F.3d 1235, 1237 (9th C ir. 1996).
6 ANL doe s not c onte n d tha t the re is a

ny othe r im pe dim e nt to m ootne ss, a

nd it doe s not a

ppe ar that M ire ska

nda ri c ould now re file the c l a im in fe de ra l c ourt. Se e C a l. C i v. Proc . C ode § 340(c ) (statute of lim ita tions); Robe rts v . Mc

A fe e , Inc
. , 660 F.3d 1156, 1166, 1169 (9th C ir. 2011). 3c a se s c ite d the re in; Unite d State s v . Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1144 n.1 (9th C ir. 1981). Thus, a lthough wedid ha ve jurisdic tion a

t the inc e ption of them e rits a ppe a l, it ha s now be c om e m oot, a

nd will bedism isse d for la c k of jurisdic tion. (2) M ire ska

nda ri a sse rts tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion whe n it a warde d the anti-SLAPP attorne y ’ s fe e s 7 a ga inst him be c a use ANL did not
suc c e e d in striking a

ll of his c la im s pursua

nt to its a nti-SLAPP m otion, a

nd be c a use the fe e s a

re unre a sona

bly la rge . Of c ourse , the m e re fa c t tha t M ire ska n da ri ha s now dismisse d the a c tion doe s not a ffe c t ANL’ s right to re c ove r
a ppropria te fe e s, 8 but the award is subje c t to thetria l c ourt’ s broa d disc re tion, 9 and
m ust be re a sona

b l e in a m ount. 1 0 M ire ska nda ri wrongly a sse rts tha

t ANL’ s attorne y ’ s fe e s ha d to be re duc e d be c a use it did not preva il on thewhole of its a nti-SLAPP m otion. W e c annot sa y that the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion whe n it de te rm i ne d tha t on ba l anc e ANL

7 Se e C a l . C i v. Proc . C o de § 425.16(c ).
8 Se e W ilk e rson v . Sullivan , 99 C a l. App. 4th 443, 446, 121 C a l. R ptr. 2d 275, 277 (2002).

9 Se e Mann v . Quality

Old Time Se rv ., Inc
. , 139 C a l . App. 4th 328, 340, 42 C a l. R ptr. 3d 607, 614–15 (2006); se e also Manufac ture d HomeC mty s., Inc . v . C ounty of San Die

go , 655 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th C ir. 2011); Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C i r. 2009) (e n ba nc ).
1 0 Se e R obe rtson v . Rodrigue z , 36 C a l . App. 4th 347, 362, 42 C a l. R ptr. 2d 464, 472 (1995); se e also Manufac ture d Home , 655 F.3d a

t 1176. 4wa s highly

suc c e ssful, a

nd tha t no re duc tion for fa i lure to fully pre va il wa s
re quire d. 1 1 M ore ove r, we c annot sa

y tha t the fe e award wa s unre a s ona b ly la rge unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s. The d i stric t c ourt re duc e d ANL’ s fe e award by fifte e n pe rc e nt
a c ross the boa

rd be c a use it de te rm ine d tha

t the re wa s som e ove rbilling. W he n prope rly e xpla i ne d, tha

t a pproa c h is sa

tisfa c tory . Se e Gate

s v . De uk me jian , 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th C ir. 1992). Thedistric t c o urt c are fully

de line ate d its
re a s oning in de c i d ing tha

t a re duc tion wa s re quire d. Ove ra ll, it said e nough to
a llow our re vie w of its e xe rc ise of disc re tion. (3) M ire ska

nda ri a lso a sse rts tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it im pose d
sa nc tions upon him

for his viola

tion of thec ourt’ s sc h e duling a nd othe r pre tria l orde rs. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 16(f)(1)(c ), 16(f)(2). He argue s tha t onc e he dism isse d the c om pla i nt, sa nc t ions for his pa st bre a c h e s of the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs we re im prope r. W e se e no justific ation for holding tha t a volunta ry dism i ssa l pre c lude s issua nc e of a sa nc tions orde r. Se e C

oote r & Ge ll v . Hartmarx C orp. , 496 U.S. 384, 395–96, 110 S. C t . 2447, 2455–56, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990). To the e xte nt tha

t he

1 1 Se e H e nsle y v . Ec k e rhart , 461 U.S. 424, 435, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1940, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983); se e also Grac iano v . Robinson Ford Sale s, Inc
. , 144 C a l. App. 4th 140, 158–59, 50 C a l. R ptr. 3d 273, 288–89 (2006); Mann , 139 C a l . App. 4th a t 344–45, 42 C a l. R

ptr. 3d a t 618–19; Abdallah v

. Unite d Sav . Bank , 43 C a l. App. 4th 1101, 1111, 51 C a l. R ptr. 2d 286, 293 (1996).

5sugge s ts tha

t a sa nc t i on for viola

ting a sc he duling or other pre tria l orde r is not
c olla te ra l to them e rits of the a c tion, we disa gre e . The distric t c ourt ha d a uthority to sa nc tion him

for his a c tions prior to the volunta ry dism issa l. C

f. C oote r & Ge ll , 496 U.S. a

t 395, 110 S. C t. at

2455; A lle n v . Ex

x on C orp. (In re

Ex x on Valde

z) , 102 F.3d 429, 431 (9th C ir. 1996). Thus, this c la im fa ils. 1 2 DISM ISSED a s to Appe a l No. 13-56858; a nd AFFIRM ED a s to Appe a ls Nos. 14-56438 a

nd 14-56911.

1 2 W e note that M ire ska

nda ri ra ise s issue s in his reply brie f re ga

rding Nos. 14-56438 a

nd 14-56911 tha

t we re ne ithe r ra ise d at the distric t c ourt nor ra i se d in his ope ning brie f. W e de c line to c onside r those issue s . Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999); C raw ford v . Lungre n , 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th C ir. 1996). 6