Background
Luke Sahs, a former Loyola University New Orleans student, was arrested for misdemeanor stalking after another student reported statements concerning bombs, chemical agents, and chemical burns. A Loyola police officer subsequently spoke with a student journalist, whose article attributed statements to university police about Sahs possessing lethal chemical materials and potentially facing terroristic-threat charges. An edited version later attributed the chemical-material allegation to the arrest affidavit.
Sahs withdrew from Loyola, and the stalking charge was dismissed without any weapons- or chemical-material charges being filed. He then sued Loyola in federal court on defamation, negligence, emotional-distress, vicarious-liability, and contract theories. Loyola filed a special motion to strike under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 971, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, but the district court denied it because Article 971 does not apply in a federal diversity action.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It first exercised interlocutory jurisdiction under binding circuit precedent holding that denial of an Article 971 motion is an immediately appealable collateral order. Although the court acknowledged contrary authority and possible grounds for distinguishing that precedent, it concluded that the circuit’s rule of orderliness required adherence to it.
On the merits, the court held that Article 971 conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56 because all address when a case may be dismissed before trial. Article 971 adds a burden-shifting framework that requires less from the movant before forcing the plaintiff to produce evidence, and it generally stays discovery while the motion is pending. Because Rules 12 and 56 validly regulate procedure under the Rules Enabling Act, they displace the conflicting Louisiana statute in federal court.
Judge Oldham agreed that Article 971 does not apply in federal court but wrote separately to express doubt that the court had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. He questioned how denial of a state-law motion equivalent to a merits-based Rule 12 or Rule 56 motion could qualify for immediate review when denials under those federal rules ordinarily do not.
Key Takeaways
- Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 971 does not apply in federal court because it conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56.
- The conflict arises from Article 971’s distinct burden-shifting framework and its presumptive stay of discovery, even though the plaintiff’s ultimate evidentiary burden resembles the Rule 56 standard.
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, denial of an Article 971 motion remains immediately appealable as a collateral order, though Judge Oldham questioned that jurisdictional rule.
Why It Matters
Litigants defending Louisiana-law claims in federal court cannot use Article 971’s special motion to strike, burden-shifting procedure, discovery stay, or related early-dismissal mechanism. They must instead seek pretrial dismissal under the Federal Rules.
The decision also clarifies that earlier Fifth Circuit opinions applying or discussing Article 971 in federal diversity cases had not conclusively resolved the Erie question. At the same time, the separate opinion highlights continuing uncertainty over whether federal appellate courts should immediately review denials of state anti-SLAPP motions.