Reported / Citable
Background
Former Loyola University New Orleans student Luke Sahs was arrested for misdemeanor stalking after another student reported statements allegedly concerning bombs and chemical agents. A Loyola police officer later spoke with a student journalist, whose article reported that Sahs possessed chemical materials capable of killing people and might face terroristic-threat charges. An edited version attributed the chemical-material allegation to the arrest affidavit. The stalking case was later dismissed, and no weapons- or chemical-related charges were filed.
Sahs sued Loyola for defamation, slander, negligence, emotional distress, breach of contract, and related claims. Loyola filed a special motion to strike under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 971, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The district court denied the motion because Article 971 does not apply in a federal diversity action, and Loyola took an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that Article 971 answers the same pretrial-dismissal question as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56 while imposing additional procedural requirements. Article 971 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of success after the defendant makes a prima facie showing that the suit arises from protected activity connected to a public issue. It also generally stays discovery while the special motion is pending.
The court concluded that Article 971 conflicts with the federal rules because its burden-shifting framework requires less from the movant before forcing the plaintiff to produce proof, and its discovery stay conflicts with Rule 56’s ordinary allowance for adequate discovery. Because Rules 12 and 56 are valid under the Rules Enabling Act, they displace Article 971 in federal court. The panel exercised collateral-order jurisdiction under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, although Judge Oldham wrote separately, dubitante, questioning whether interlocutory jurisdiction existed.
Key Takeaways
- Louisiana’s Article 971 anti-SLAPP procedure does not apply in federal court.
- The statute conflicts with Rules 12 and 56 through its burden-shifting framework and restrictions on discovery.
- The decision leaves Sahs’s underlying claims unresolved and affirms only the denial of Loyola’s special motion to strike.
Why It Matters
Litigants in Fifth Circuit federal courts cannot use Article 971’s accelerated dismissal mechanism, discovery stay, or associated procedural framework. Challenges to Louisiana-law claims must instead proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The opinion also preserves, under circuit precedent, immediate appellate review of an order denying an Article 971 motion, while Judge Oldham’s separate writing highlights continuing uncertainty over whether such denials properly fall within the collateral-order doctrine.