Reintegrative Therapy Association, Inc. v. Kinitz

Holding: The Ninth Circuit held that a district court retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits of anti-SLAPP motions as a necessary predicate to awarding attorney fees, even after a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the case.
Standard: de novo review of denial of anti-SLAPP motion
Practical effect: Defendants are entitled to a ruling on the merits of their anti-SLAPP motions and a potential award of attorney fees, even though the underlying lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order that denied anti-SLAPP motions as moot. The appellate court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motions as a necessary predicate to awarding attorney fees.

Background

Plaintiffs Reintegrative Therapy Association and Joseph Nicolosi Jr. sued Defendants David Kinitz and Travis Salway for defamation over an academic article linking their therapy brand to conversion therapy. Defendants filed special motions to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute and requested attorney fees. The district court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied the anti-SLAPP motions as moot, and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Before amending, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. Defendants appealed, arguing the district court should have ruled on the anti-SLAPP motions to determine fee eligibility.

The court’s reasoning

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion de novo. The court noted that California law permits a court lacking jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims to resolve an anti-SLAPP motion on jurisdictional grounds and award fees. The court reasoned that exempting claims from the anti-SLAPP statute due to lack of jurisdiction would allow plaintiffs to bypass protections. Furthermore, upon voluntary dismissal, the trial court retains jurisdiction for the limited purpose of awarding costs and fees. Therefore, the district court was required to rule on the merits of the special motions to strike as a predicate to the fee award.

What it means going forward

Defendants are entitled to a ruling on the merits of their anti-SLAPP motions and a potential award of attorney fees, even though the underlying lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.