U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

Moser v. Encore Capital Group, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 28, 2008

287 F. App'x 606

Counsel

Anthony J. Dain, Kendra J. Hall, Frederic G. Ludwig, III, Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Thomas V. Reichert, Bird Marella, et al., PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellants., Jason D. Kogan, Bird Marella, et al., PC, Los Angeles, CA, Earll M. Pott, Coughlan Semmer and Lipman, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Encore Capital Group and individual defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their special motion to strike pursuant to California’s antiSLAPP law, Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not set them forth here. We have jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2003).

We affirm. The filing of a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission does not constitute a “writing made before” or “in connection with an issue under consideration or review by” an “official proceeding authorized by law” within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(1) and (e)(2).1

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

. We do not consider whether it is a “writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review” by an “executive ... body,” Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(2), because that argument was not presented in Appellant's opening brief, nor before the district court. Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Wash., 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.