Cirrus Education, Inc. v. Christopher Adams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-55899
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIRRUS EDUCATION, INC., a corporation; No. 22-55899 et al., D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2:16-cv-09194-TJH-GJS

v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER M. ADAMS, an individual,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

DAVID V. ADAMS, trustee of the Christopher Adams Trust; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** District

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Judge.

Christopher M. Adams (“Adams”) appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to a defamation claim asserted

against him by Cirrus Beijing Corp. (“Cirrus”). As the parties are familiar with the

facts of this case, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction over this

appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Applying de novo review, Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc.,

953 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020), we reverse and remand.

In a previous appeal, Cirrus challenged the district court’s dismissal of its

defamation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cirrus Beijing

Corp. v. Adams, 772 Fed. App’x 600, 601 (9th Cir. 2019). We reversed. Id. On

remand, Adams moved for judgment on the pleadings on the defamation claim

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In support of his motion, he

submitted a foreign legal expert’s declaration for the district court’s review

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1. Notwithstanding the submission

of new evidence, the district court held that the Rule 12(c) motion was barred by

our prior mandate and certified its order for interlocutory appeal. Adams appeals

that ruling.

*** The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 2 Our mandate in the previous appeal considered only the facts set forth in the

complaint. We did not address, or bar further consideration of, whether additional

evidence might support Adams’ argument for dismissal. Adams properly

presented such additional evidence in his motion for judgment on the pleadings.

See de Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 838 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that

district courts may “consider[] foreign legal materials—including expert testimony

and declarations—at the pleading stage . . . .”). Given the submission of new

evidence, the Rule 12(c) motion was not barred by our mandate. The district court

therefore erred in denying the motion on that basis.

We further hold that the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings,

as well as any questions regarding disputed material facts, are best considered in

the first instance by the district court on remand. See Planned Parenthood of

Greater Washington & N. Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d

1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2020).

Costs on appeal are awarded to Adams.

REVERSED and REMANDED.