David V. Beckham, an individual v. BAUER PUBLISHING COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID V. BECKHAM, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
V.
BAUER PUBLISHING COMPANY, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership; BAUER
MAGAZINE L.P., a Delaware limited
liability partnership; BAUER MEDIA
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BAUER, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BAUER NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; MICHELLE LEE,
an individual,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
IRMA NICI, an individual,
Defendant.
No. 11-55441
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07980-R-SS
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID V. BECKHAM, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 11-56010
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07980-R-SS
FILED
FEB 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
V.
BAUER PUBLISHING COMPANY, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership; BAUER
MAGAZINE L.P., a Delaware limited
liability partnership; BAUER MEDIA
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BAUER, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BAUER NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; MICHELLE LEE,
an individual,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
IRMA NICI, an individual,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 6, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
David Beckham appeals the district court’s order granting an anti-SLAPP
motion to strike his complaint against Bauer Publishing Company; Bauer

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Magazine; Bauer Media Group, Inc.; Bauer, Inc.; Bauer North America, Inc.; and
Michelle Lee (the “Bauer defendants”). We dismiss his appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.
Because the district court’s order dismissed Beckham’s claims against some,
but not all, of the defendants in the action, it is not an appealable final order. See
Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1415–16 (9th Cir.
1985). Moreover, this court does not have jurisdiction over his appeal under the
collateral order doctrine because the district court’s order granted immunity to the
Bauer defendants. See DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp., No. 11-56934, 2013
WL 119716, at *4–5 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013) (treating California anti-SLAPP
motions as a form of immunity from suit); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018,
1025–26 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). An order granting immunity to some defendants
before trial can be “fully and effectively reviewed after final judgment.” Branson
v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 335 (9th Cir. 1990).
Although Beckham argues that we should follow California law, which
allows interlocutory appeals from orders granting anti-SLAPP motions to strike,
we decline to do so. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 904.1(a)(13). Federal law governs
our jurisdiction in this case and under federal law, we lack appellate jurisdiction.
See Englert v. MacDonell, 551 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
DISMISSED.

-- 4 of 4 --