Cirrus Education, Inc. v. Christopher Adams

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIRRUS EDUCATION, INC., a corporation; No. 22-55899
et al.,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2:16-cv-09194-TJH-GJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER M. ADAMS, an individual,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
DAVID V. ADAMS, trustee of the
Christopher Adams Trust; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** District
*
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).
Judge.
Christopher M. Adams (“Adams”) appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to a defamation claim asserted
against him by Cirrus Beijing Corp. (“Cirrus”). As the parties are familiar with the
facts of this case, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Applying de novo review, Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc.,
953 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020), we reverse and remand.
In a previous appeal, Cirrus challenged the district court’s dismissal of its
defamation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cirrus Beijing
Corp. v. Adams, 772 Fed. App’x 600, 601 (9th Cir. 2019). We reversed. Id. On
remand, Adams moved for judgment on the pleadings on the defamation claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In support of his motion, he
submitted a foreign legal expert’s declaration for the district court’s review
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1. Notwithstanding the submission
of new evidence, the district court held that the Rule 12(c) motion was barred by
our prior mandate and certified its order for interlocutory appeal. Adams appeals
that ruling.
***
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
2
Our mandate in the previous appeal considered only the facts set forth in the
complaint. We did not address, or bar further consideration of, whether additional
evidence might support Adams’ argument for dismissal. Adams properly
presented such additional evidence in his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
See de Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 838 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that
district courts may “consider[] foreign legal materials—including expert testimony
and declarations—at the pleading stage . . . .”). Given the submission of new
evidence, the Rule 12(c) motion was not barred by our mandate. The district court
therefore erred in denying the motion on that basis.
We further hold that the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings,
as well as any questions regarding disputed material facts, are best considered in
the first instance by the district court on remand. See Planned Parenthood of
Greater Washington & N. Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d
1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2020).
Costs on appeal are awarded to Adams.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3