How the Ninth Circuit’s New Anti-SLAPP Appeal Rule Helps Plaintiffs in California Malicious Prosecution Lawsuits
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a major decision that changes how appeals are handled for denials of anti-SLAPP motions in federal court. Previously, defendants in California lawsuits—including malicious prosecution cases—could appeal immediately if a federal district court rejected their anti-SLAPP motion, often delaying litigation for months or even years. Now, that automatic right is gone. Instead, appeals must generally wait until after a final judgment is entered.[1]
What Did the Ninth Circuit Decide?
On October 8, 2025, the Ninth Circuit ruled that orders denying anti-SLAPP motions under California law are not immediately appealable as collateral orders in federal court. This decision reverses a two-decade-old practice, meaning litigants can no longer pause lawsuits midstream with instant appeals when an anti-SLAPP motion is denied. The court explained that such orders do not resolve issues fully separate from the lawsuit’s merits and can be reviewed after the case concludes.[1]
Read the decision here: Gopher Media LLC v. Melone – Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Why Does This Matter for Malicious Prosecution Plaintiffs?
For Californians pursuing malicious prosecution claims in federal court, the new rule has several concrete benefits:
- Speedier Litigation: Defendants can no longer use anti-SLAPP motions to delay the lawsuit with immediate appeals. For plaintiffs, this often means a quicker path to discovery and potential resolution, rather than lengthy stays and procedural wrangling.[1]
- Reduced Litigation Costs: By curbing automatic appeals, plaintiffs avoid costly multi-stage litigation over anti-SLAPP issues that previously could drag on for years.[1]
- Greater Leverage: The removal of automatic appeals makes settlements more likely, as defendants face the prospect of continued litigation rather than escape via procedural delay.
What Is an Anti-SLAPP Motion?
California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law is designed to quickly weed out meritless lawsuits targeting free speech or petition rights. Defendants may file a special motion to strike (commonly known as an anti-SLAPP motion), and if they win, they can recover attorneys’ fees.[1]
Practical Impact
While California state courts still allow immediate appeals from anti-SLAPP denials, federal courts in the Ninth Circuit—including those covering all of California—now do not. This distinction may affect how and where parties choose to litigate malicious prosecution claims, making federal court a more plaintiff-friendly forum in this respect.[1]
Conclusion
This ruling marks a significant win for plaintiffs in malicious prosecution cases in California’s federal courts. It limits unnecessary delay and ensures a more direct route to resolving the actual merits of the lawsuit. For further details, legal professionals and parties can review the full Ninth Circuit opinion here.[1]
References:
Courthouse News: “Ninth Circuit reverses course on anti-SLAPP denial appeals” (October 8, 2025)[1]
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision: Gopher Media LLC v. Melone[1]
