Pedraza et al v. Alameda Unified School District et al
ERRONEOUS DOCKET ENTRY - PLEASE DISREGARDORDER declining to rule on anti-SLAPP motion until case is resolved on the merits. Signed by Judge Walker on 11/26/2008. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2008) Modified on 11/26/2008 (gsa, COURT STAFF).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On October 15, 2008, the court declined to rule on NextG Networks, Inc's ("NextG") anti-SLAPP motion against NewPath Networks, LLC ("NewPath"). Doc #40 at 12-14. The anti-SLAPP NEXTG NETWORKS, INC, Plaintiffs, v NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC, Defendant. / No C 08-1565 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
motion was directed at NewPath's counterclaims of tortious interference with a contractual relationship, negligent interference with a business expectancy and unfair competition. Id. The court dismissed these counterclaims because they were
based on allegations of privileged conduct, but NewPath was granted leave to amend its countercomplaint not later than October 31, 2008. Id at 16. On November 6, 2008, the court, having received an inquiry from NextG counsel asking how to resolve the anti-SLAPP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
motion given that NewPath did not amend its countercomplaint, directed the parties to file a status update on the issue. #42. On November 17, 2008, NextG filed a statement indicating its position that the court should simply grant the anti-SLAPP motion. Doc #44 at 4. On November 24, 2008, NewPath filed a Doc
statement arguing that the anti-SLAPP motion should be denied or deferred until the end of the case when it can be considered with other attorney fee motions. Doc #45 at 4. Although NewPath
somewhat mischaracterized the court's earlier ruling on the antiSLAPP motion ---- the court did not hold that the state-law claims were supported by evidence that would survive an anti-SLAPP motion, but rather noted that NewPath might be able to present sufficient evidence to defeat a motion, see Doc #45 at 3, Doc #40 at 14 ---- NewPath is correct that its decision not to amend its countercomplaint is not an admission that those abandoned claims are unsupported. Doc #45.
Given the court's and the parties' interest in proceeding to the merits of this case, the latter course of action suggested by NewPath is appropriate. Accordingly, the court DECLINES TO RULE
on the anti-SLAPP motion until the case is resolved on the merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?