N.Y. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District et al

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 5, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2018)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

N.Y.,

Case No. 17-cv-03906-MMC
Plaintiff,

7
v.

8
9
10

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
FILE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 59

Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court is defendants' "Joint Motion to Extend Defendants' Time to File

13

Anti-Slapp Motion Under Cal. CCP Section 425.16(f)," filed April 3, 2018. 1 Having read

14

and considered the motion and supporting declaration, the Court rules as follows.

15

Any motion filed under § 425.16, "California's anti-SLAPP statute," see Doe v.

16

Gangland Productions, Inc., 730 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2013), would be futile, as each of

17

plaintiff's claims arises under federal law and "the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to

18

federal causes of action." See id. at 955 n.3 (quoting Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d

19

894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also Nunag-Tanedo v. East Baton Rouge Parish School

20

Board, 711 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding "California's anti-SLAPP statute

21

applies only to state law claims").

22

Accordingly, defendants' motion is hereby DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: April 5, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

1

Defendants were informed that, although plaintiff would not stipulate to the relief
sought, he would not oppose the motion. (See Phillips Decl. Ex. A.)