Court Opinion

ID: 9925582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 14:01:06.592547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:07.207133
License: Public Domain

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

          United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

No. 19-1389

                          THOMAS FRANCHINI,

                        Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                    v.

   INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, INC., d/b/a INVESTOR'S BUSINESS
                             DAILY,

                       Defendant, Appellant,

  BANGOR PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a BANGOR DAILY NEWS; MEG
 HASKELL; EDWARD MURPHY; GANNETT COMPANY, INC., d/b/a USA TODAY;
    DONOVAN SLACK; SALLY PIPES; MTM ACQUISITION, INC., d/b/a
                      PORTLAND PRESS HERALD,

                              Defendants.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

          [Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge]
                                 Before*

                        Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                     and Saris**, District Judge.

     Russell B. Pierce, Jr., with whom Norman, Hanson & DeTroy,
LLC were on brief, for appellant.
     Raymond W. Belair, with whom Belair & Associates, P.C. were
on brief, for appellee.

                          January 17, 2024

    *     Judge Torruella heard oral argument in this case and
participated in the initial semble thereafter.      His death on
October 26, 2020, ended his involvement in this case.         The
remaining two panelists issued this opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 46(d).
    **    Of   the    District     of      Massachusetts,   sitting   by
designation.
           LYNCH, Circuit Judge.         In January 2018 Thomas Franchini

brought this diversity jurisdiction case in federal court alleging

four state law counts of defamation and one state law count of

misrepresentation arising out of articles published or written by

the defendants concerning deficiencies in medical care at VA

hospitals.    These    articles     also    detailed    various      malpractice

actions which had been brought against Franchini, then a physician

at the Togus VA Medical Center in Augusta, Maine.                   Case No. 19-

1389 is an interlocutory appeal in that case from the denial by

the district court of defendant Investor's Business Daily, Inc.'s

("IBD"), special motion to strike Franchini's defamation claim

against it under Maine's anti-SLAPP statute on March 25, 2019.

Franchini v. Bangor Publishing Co., Inc. ("Franchini I"), 383 F.

Supp. 3d 50, 64-65 (D. Me. 2019).           We dismiss IBD's interlocutory

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

           We do not address here Franchini's appeal from the later

September 3, 2021, entry of summary judgment for defendants on

Franchini's defamation claims, Franchini v. Bangor Publishing Co.,

Inc.   ("Franchini    II"),   560   F.     Supp.   3d   312   (D.    Me.   2021),

including, as separately entered under the same reasoning on June

8, 2022, for IBD.     We adopt the facts as stated in that order, id.

at 317-26, and state only those additional facts necessary to the

resolution of this appeal.

                                    - 3 -
            On March 19, 2018, IBD moved to strike Franchini's

complaint pursuant to Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, ME. REV. STAT.

tit. 14, § 556.     The district court denied that motion on March

29, 2019.    Franchini I, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 64-65.   IBD then filed

an interlocutory appeal in this court, and the district court

stayed all further proceedings as to IBD.     On November 13, 2020,

this court issued an opinion finding jurisdiction over IBD's

interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine1 and

certifying a question as to IBD's special motion to strike to the

     1    This court concluded it had jurisdiction over IBD's
interlocutory appeal because it satisfied the four-factor test for
application of the collateral order doctrine. See Franchini v.
Investor's Business Daily, Inc., 981 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2020)
(citing Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 83-84 (1st Cir. 2010)).
In particular, this court concluded that the appeal met the
requirement that it present an issue which would effectively be
unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment because

            IBD is denied meaningful relief if it must go
            through the time and expense of fully
            litigating this matter before it can address
            the anti-SLAPP issue. Indeed, the Maine Law
            Court has reached the same conclusion in
            permitting state interlocutory appeals from
            denials    of    Maine’s    anti-SLAPP    law.
            [Schelling v. Lindell, 942 A.2d 1226, 1229-30
            (Me. 2008)] ("We allow interlocutory appeals
            from denials of special motions to dismiss
            brought pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute
            because a failure to grant review of these
            decisions   at   this   stage   would   impose
            additional litigation costs on defendants, the
            very harm the statute seeks to avoid, and
            would result in a loss of defendants'
            substantial rights.").

Id. at 7.

                                - 4 -
Maine Supreme Judicial Court.            Franchini v. Investor's Business

Daily, Inc., 981 F.3d 1, 8, 10 (1st Cir. 2020).                 On February 10,

2022, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion declining

to   answer    that    certified   question.        Franchini    v.   Investor's

Business Daily, Inc., 268 A.3d 863, 867 (Me. 2022).

              On December 17, 2020, after this court had certified the

question to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court but before that court

issued its opinion, all defendants moved the district court for

summary judgment as to the defamation claims.                   The defendants

argued Franchini was a public figure and thus could not recover

for defamation absent actual malice, which the district court had

already determined he had failed to plead.2               The district court

granted that motion and entered judgment on Franchini's defamation

claims as to all defendants other than IBD on September 3, 2021.3

Franchini II, 560 F. Supp. 3d at 333.                 It did not reach the

defamation     claim    against    IBD   on   the   grounds   that    it   lacked

      2   On March 29, 2019, the district court concluded that
Franchini's operative complaint failed to plead actual malice and
that any leave to amend would be futile as to that issue.
Franchini I, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 58-60.     Franchini nevertheless
filed a Second Amended Complaint without leave on December 20,
2019, which he argues adequately pled actual malice. The district
court dismissed that complaint on April 15, 2020, concluding that
it failed to sufficiently plead actual malice.
      3   Franchini filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's partial summary judgment order on September 16, 2021. This
court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction on April 15,
2022.

                                     - 5 -
jurisdiction to do so due to IBD's pending interlocutory appeal.4

At that time, Franchini had one other live claim in addition to

the defamation claim against IBD: Count V, a misrepresentation

claim brought against Gannett Company, Inc., and Donovan Slack.

See id. at 333.

          On October 1, 2021, IBD filed a motion in this court for

"limited remand" of its interlocutory appeal to allow the district

court to consider entry of summary judgment in its favor on

Franchini's defamation claim.        This court granted that motion on

October 13, 2021.      Doubts about its jurisdiction having been

resolved, the district court entered summary judgment in IBD's

favor on June 8, 2022, invoking the law of the case doctrine and

its September 3, 2021, order.

          On   July   5,   2023,    the   district   court   entered   final

judgment after it had granted summary judgment to the remaining

defendants, Gannett Company, Inc. and Slack, as to Count V.

Franchini v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 1:18-00015, 2023 WL 4350680,

at *1 (D. Me. July 5, 2023).       Franchini filed a timely appeal after

final judgment, which this court docketed as Case No. 23-1633.

     4    As to IBD the district court concluded that "[t]o the
extent that IBD has joined the pending Motion for Summary Judgment,
. . . the ongoing stay and interlocutory appeal prevent the Court
from ruling on the merits of IBD’s request for summary judgment.
Thus, the Motion shall be denied without prejudice to later renewal
as to Defendant IBD only." Id. at 326 n.30.

                                    - 6 -
This   court      consolidated       that     appeal     with   IBD's       pending

interlocutory appeal, Case No. 19-1389, on September 8, 2023.

            IBD asks us to resolve its pending interlocutory appeal

after entry of final judgment in IBD's favor, but this court no

longer has interlocutory jurisdiction over that order.                  Here, IBD

requested remand of its interlocutory appeal so the district court

could resolve its motion for summary judgment.              The district court

entered summary judgment in IBD's favor and final judgment has

entered.     In consequence, Case No. 19-1389 does not meet the

requirements for interlocutory jurisdiction, and we must dismiss

IBD's interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.                See Awuah v.

Coverall North America, Inc., 585 F.3d 479, 483 (1st Cir. 2009).

            For    the     reasons    stated     above,    we     dismiss     IBD's

interlocutory appeal, Case No. 19-1389.                This opinion is without

prejudice   as    to     any   application     for   attorney's    fees     by   the

prevailing party on appeal in the merits case.

                                      - 7 -