Plaintiff in Farah v. Esquire Provides Court Its View of 3M Decision

The plaintiff in the Farah v. Esquire case today informed the Court of Judge Wilkins’ decision in 3M v. Boulter. That decision, of course, denied an anti-SLAPP motion on the basis that it conflicts with Rule 12 and 56 and thus cannot be applied in federal diversity suits.

In his filing, the Farah plaintiff argues that “[i]t is now the law of this Court that the Anti-SLAPP Act is not applicable. Thus, the Court should respectfully summarily deny Defendant’s special motion to dismiss, which was filed on August 26, 2011, so that discovery may proceed.”

While the Farah court can certainly consider the 3M decision instructive, the plaintiff is wrong when he contends that the 3M decision is somehow controlling. “The doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district court to follow the decision of another.” R.P. v. District of Columbia, 474 F. Supp. 2d 152, 153 n.4 (D.D.C. 2007) (citation omitted). See also 18 Moore’s Federal Practice § 134.02[1][d] (2006) (“A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case”).

Leslie Machado

About: Leslie Machado

Mr. Machado counsels and advises a diverse range of clients on various areas of law. He is also an experienced litigator, having tried cases to verdict in state and federal courts. View all posts by Leslie Machado
This entry was posted in General and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!