STEPHEN JOHN SIMONI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Media, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN JOHN SIMONI, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN MEDIA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-56558
D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00573-R-MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Stephen John Simoni, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order dismissing his diversity action arising from defendant’s publication of an
article. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-56558
district court’s grant of a motion to strike under California’s anti-Strategic
Litigation Against Public Policy (“anti-SLAPP”) statute. Manufactured Home
Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 655 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted defendant’s special motion under
California’s anti-SLAPP statute to strike Simoni’s state law claims because
Simoni’s claims were based on protected activity and Simoni’s failed to show a
probability of prevailing on the merits, as defendant’s speech was not
commercial. See Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2010)
(explaining two-prong test for anti-SLAPP motion); see also Dex Media W., Inc. v.
City of Seattle, 696 F.3d 952, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth analysis to
determine whether speech is commercial).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Simoni’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without leave to
amend where amendment would be futile).
We reject as without merit Simoni’s contention that the award of attorney’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-56558
fees should be reversed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --