United States Ninth Circuit

In a dispute between residents of Nevada against California residents involving an allegedly improper satisfaction of judgment, denial of defendants' motion to strike and/or dismiss, and their motion for reconsideration, is affirmed where: 1) the anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits of their first two causes of action; 2) the motion to dismiss was properly denied as plaintiffs first two causes of action were based on cognizable legal theories which are supported by sufficient facts; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/10/2007
• Decided 06/04/2007
• Published 06/04/2007

Judges

• HOLLAND, District Judge., Before:  PROCTER HUG, JR. and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and H. RUSSEL HOLLAND , District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• James R. Hales, Rowe & Hales, Minden, NV, for the appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michael A. Zamani, pro se, San Jose, CA, argued on his own behalf. Timothy E. Herr, Herr & Zapala, San Jose, CA, was on the brief for the appellees.