Northon v. Rule ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 18 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LIYSA NORTHON; WAYLAND                           No. 07-35319
    DEWITT; JON “TOR” DEWITT,
    D.C. No. CV-06-00851-MO
    Plaintiff - Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ANN RULE, an individual; FREE PRESS,
    a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.;
    SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., a Delaware
    corporation,
    Defendant - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 7, 2010 **
    Portland, Oregon
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    1
    Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges
    Liysa Northon and other members of her family appeal from the district
    court’s order granting Defendants’ special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-
    Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) law, 
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150
    . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo,
    Gardner v. Martino, 
    563 F.3d 981
    , 986 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.1
    The district court properly granted Defendants’ special motion because
    Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing that there was a probability
    that they would prevail on their claims. See 
    id.
     (explaining that the plaintiff has the
    burden to “establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the
    claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case”).
    Specifically, Plaintiffs failed to show how any statements made in the book might
    have been defamatory. See 
    id. at 989
     (affirming dismissal of defamation claim
    because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence to support a
    prima facie case). During the hearing, Plaintiffs offered a generalized argument
    that the entire book was defamatory and did not provide any citations for false
    statements. The court properly determined that in evaluating whether Plaintiffs
    1
    In an order filed simultaneously with this memorandum, we also grant
    Defendants-Appellees’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees.
    2
    have actionable claims for defamation under Oregon law, it must look at each
    challenged statement, rather than the book as a whole. See Reesman v. Highfill,
    
    327 Or. 597
    , 604-05 (1998).
    Plaintiffs cannot succeed on their claim that the magistrate judge was biased
    against them because they did not file a “timely and sufficient” motion for recusal
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 144
    . See United States v. Castro, 
    887 F. 2d 988
    , 1000 (9th Cir.
    1989). The ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because a plaintiff does not
    have a constitutional right to counsel in a civil action. See Nicholson v. Rushen,
    
    767 F. 2d 1426
    , 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). We decline to consider the
    other issues raised on appeal because they were not raised before the district court.
    See Turnacliff v. Westly, 
    546 F. 3d 1113
    , 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-35319

Judges: Tashima, Paez, Clifton

Filed Date: 1/18/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024