MEMORANDUM ***

This case arises out of the parties’ disagreement about the scope of their rights under certain contracts. For two years, with each claiming that the other breached the contracts, the parties attempted to resolve their contract-related disputes through settlement negotiations and mediation. When the parties’ attempts at resolution proved unsuccessful, Plaintiffs filed suit for breach of contract. In response, Defendants filed breach-of-contract counterclaims.

Invoking California’s anti-SLAPP statute, 1 Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16, Plaintiffs moved to strike Defendants’ breach-of-contract counterclaims. In their motion, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants’ counterclaims were filed solely to punish Plaintiffs for filing their lawsuit, thereby violating the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument, recognizing that the lawsuit was a “routine contract dispute that gave rise to [both], claims and counterclaims ... [for] affirmative relief.” According to the district court, Defendants’ contract-related counterclaims lacked “the hallmark characteristics of SLAPP suits.”

Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.