On March 24, 2025, the News/Media Alliance joined an amicus brief led by RCFP in Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, urging the Ninth Circuit to find that California’s anti-SLAPP substantive provisions, including the fee-shifting provision that is trigged upon a defendant prevailing on an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike, apply in diversity cases in federal court.
The case concerns a dispute over the conversion of parking spaces into 15-minute parking zones. After Plaintiff brought an action around Defendants’ alleged policing of spots outside their storefront, Defendants counterclaimed for trade libel, defamation, and unfair business competition. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion as untimely and found that, while the alleged false statements were made on the internet—a public forum—they did not concern an issue of public interest because they arise from a private dispute and did not concern a topic of wide interest.
Plaintiff appeals the denial of their anti-SLAPP motion. The Ninth Circuit subsequently ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing, in part, whether the case should be heard en banc to reconsider whether California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court. News/Media Alliance joined RCFP’s amicus brief, urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold its longstanding precedent that the substantive protections of California’s anti-SLAPP law’s fee-shifting provisions apply in federal court, advocating for the application of substantive protections that are crucial for members of the media who otherwise would fear retaliatory litigation for reporting on important matters, knowing they would have to foot a substantial bill to defend themselves.
Members of the News/Media Alliance staff have contributed to this post.