N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT RLI INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, a

n Illinois C orporation, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt, v. LANGAN ENGINEER

ING, ENVIR ONM ENTAL, SUR VEYING AND LANDSC APE AR C HITEC TURE , D.P.C ., a Ne wYork Profe ssiona l C orporation; LANGAN ENGINEER

ING AND ENVIR ONM ENT SER

VIC ES, INC . , a Ne w York Profe ssiona l C orporation,

De fe nda n ts-c o unte rc la im ants-Appe lle e s, and TREADW ELL & R O LLO, INC ., a dissolve d C a lifornia

C oporation, De fe nda n t. No. 19-17545 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-02022-SI

ORDER

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, District Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED JAN 25 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSA rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 15, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , B YB EE, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s. RLI Insura

nc e C om pa ny (R LI) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of its m otion to strike Langa

n Engine e ring C om

p any ’ s (Lan ga

n) ba d fa ith c ounte rc la im pursua nt to C a lifornia ’ s a

nti-SLAPP sta

tute , C a l. C iv. Pro. § 425.16, in its suit a ga inst La

nga n for re sc ission of insura

nc e c o ntra c ts a

n d re c o upm e n t. B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fully

fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we will not re c ite the m he re . The distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1332. De spite La nga n’ s a rgum e nts to the c ontra

ry , we have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd the c olla te ra l orde r doc trine . W e re vie w de nov o a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a n anti-SLAPP m otion to strike . Mindy s C osme tic s, Inc . v . Dak

ar , 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . W e have c onsiste ntly

e xe rc ise d jurisdic tion ove r de nia ls of a n ti-SLAPP m otions to strike

pursua nt to thec olla

te ra l orde r doc trine . Batze l v . Smith , 333 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th C ir. 2003), supe rse de d in part by

statute on othe r grounds as state d in Bre aze alev . Vic tim Se rv s., Inc . , 878 F.3d 759, 766–67 (9th C ir. 2017); DC C omic s v . Pac . Pic ture

s C orp. , 706 F.3d 1009, 1015–16 (9th C ir. 2013) (re a ffirm ing Batze l ’ s holding tha t the c o lla te ra l orde r doc trine a

pplie s to

2anti-SLAPP m otions). Although La nga n a sse rts tha

t the de nia l of a plaintiff

’ s anti-SLAPP m otion— a s oppose d to a de fe ndant ’ s a

n ti-SLAPP m otion—is not im m e diate ly a ppe a la ble a s a c olla te ra l orde r, we hav e distinguishe d only be twe e n gran ts a nd de nia l s of a

nti-SLAPP m otions, ra

the r tha n the pa rty bringing the m otion. C

ompare Batze l , 333 F.3d a

t 1024–26 (finding tha

t a de nial of a n anti-SLAPP m otion to strike is im m e diate ly a ppe a l a ble be c a use an e rrone ous de nia l is e ffe c tive l y

unre vie wa

b le on a ppe a l a nd the sta tutory inte re s t in im

m unity from suit c annot be re m e die d on fina l a ppe a l), w ith Hy an v . Humme r , 825 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th C ir. 2016) (pe r c uriam ) (finding tha t a grant o f an a

nti-SLAPP m otion is not im

m e diate ly a ppe a la ble be c a use it is “ fully

re vie wa ble ” an d a

n e rrone ous gra

nt “ c an be fully

re m e die d on a

p pe a l by re m anding the c a se ” ). Thus, we have e xe rc ise d jurisdic tion ove r the de nia l of a pla intiff’ s a

nti-SLAPP m otion to strike . Mak

a e ff v . Trump Univ ., LLC , 715 F.3d 254, 261 (9th C ir. 2013). 1 W e have jurisdic tion ove r the de nia l of R LI’ s a nti-SLAPP m otion to strike .

1 Ne ithe r of La

nga n’ s atte m p ts to distinguish Mae k

ae ff hav e m e rit. R e ga rdle ss of whe the r a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion wa s c onte ste d by the pa rtie s , we found that we ha d jurisdic tion ove r the de nia l of the an ti-SLAPP m otion. Mak ae ff , 715 F.3d at 261. Additiona

lly , the a bse nc e in Mak

a e f f of a n a na ly sis of whe the r a pla i ntiff ha s a

substa ntive “ right not to be

trie d” fra m e s the issue inc o rre c tly . It is true tha t we have som e t im e s fra m e d the right provide d by the anti-SLAPP sta

tute a s “ an im m unity from suit,” but this im

m unity se rve s only

to pre ve nt a

m ova nt from be ing forc e d to litiga

te m e ritle ss c l a im s a

nd doe s not c re a t e tota l im m unity from suit. Se e Batze l , 333 F.3d a t 1025. 3The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing R LI’ s m otion to strike Langa n’ s ba d fa ith c o unte rc la im . C a l i fornia ’ s a nti-SLAPP sta

tute subje c ts c a

use s of a c t ion

“ arising from

any a c t . . . in furthe ranc e of the pe rson’ s right of pe tition or fre e spe e c h” to a

spe c ia l m otion to strike , unle ss the c la i m ant de m onstra te s a proba b ility of suc c e ss on them e rits. C a l. C iv. C ode § 425.16(b)(1). In c onside ring a

n a n ti-SLAPP m otion, we e nga ge in a two-pa rt inquiry , first inquiring whe the r the c la im

arise s from

prote c te d a c tivity

and, if so, whe the r the c la im ant ha s de m onstra

t e d a proba bility of suc c e ss on thec l a im . Ve s s v . C iba-Ge igy C orp. USA , 317 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th C ir. 2003). Ac tivity prote c te d by

the sta tute inc l ude s filing litiga

tion. C a l. C iv. C o de § 425.16(e ); se e N a v e llie r v . Sle tte n , 29 C a l. 4th 82, 90 (2002). Although La nga n ’ s ba d fa ith c ounte rc la i m re fe re nc e s RLI’ s la wsuit, thec la im

is not “ ba se d on” RLI’ s prote c te d a c tivity of filing suit. Se e C ity of C otati v . C ashman , 29 C a l. 4th 69, 76–77 (2002) (“ [T] he m e re fa c t a n a c tion wa s file d a fte r prote c te d a c tivity took pla c e doe s not m e an it a rose from tha t a c tivity . ” ). La

nga n ’ s c ounte rc la im

is ba se d on a n a lle ge d unde rly ing c ourse of ba d fa ith c o nduc t broa de r tha

n RLI’ s c om

pla int a lone , m aking re fe re nc e to R LI’ s suit m e re ly “ e v ide nc e re late d to lia

b ility .” Se e Park

v . Bd. of Trs. of C

al. State Univ . , 2 C a l. 5th 1057, 1065 (2017) (e m pha sis in origina

l). La nga n’ s c ounte rc la im

thus

4doe s not “ arise from ” RLI’ s prote c te d a c t ivity of filing suit a

n d is not subje c t to a

n anti-SLAPP m otion to strike . B e c a use La nga n’ s ba d fa ith c ounte rc la im doe s not a

rise from prote c te d a c tivity , we do not re a c h La n ga n’ s proba b ility of suc c e ss on them e rits. The distric t c o urt did not e rr in de ny ing R LI’ s m otion to strike . AFFIR M ED.

5