holding that Noerr-Pennington immunity 21 extended to RICO claims based on prelitigation demand letters, but the analysis focused on 22 whether the letters could form the basis of liability, not whether they must be stricken from the 23 record entirely
How later courts described this case
- holding that Noerr-Pennington immunity 21 extended to RICO claims based on prelitigation demand letters, but the analysis focused on 22 whether the letters could form the basis of liability, not whether they must be stricken from the 23 record entirely
- “Finding that the protections of the Petition Clause extend to [conduct] does not mean that the [conduct is] absolutely protected from liability.”
- holding that an earlier state court judgment could not have a preclusive effect where the federal district court reached the merits and entered judgment before the state court appeals were exhausted
- holding that threats of litigation may constitute extortion if the threat induces wrongful fear in the individual receiving the threat and the asserted claims rise to the level of a sham
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PANNER, District Judge:
I respectfully concur in the result.
The majority opinion is essentially advisory. If we affirm the decision of the district court, Sosa loses. If we reverse *943 the district court and reinstate this action, Sosa still loses because the California state court judgment is now final and would bar all of Sosa’s claims. 1 I would file a short order stating that fact, and reserve the extensive discussion of Noerr-Pennington and RICO for a case in which it is necessary to decide those questions.
. In my view, Flood v. Harrington, 532 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir.1976), does not command otherwise. Flood had no occasion to consider what effect a California court would give to the judgment, as we must do here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 . The plaintiff in Flood did not lose in state court, and then file essentially the same action in federal court, as Sosa did here. Rather, the decision on appeal in Flood was entered first, and both decisions were entered by a federal court. Furthermore, the two actions in Flood involved different claims and parties. Lastly, Flood did not consider what would transpire on remand had the panel found in favor of the plaintiff, and reinstated his action.