# Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 14, 2006 · 437 F.3d 923

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817490

## Case

- **Full name:** Rod SOSA; Gary Whittaker; Rodney Bylsma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DIRECTV, INC.; Hughes Electronics Corporation; General Motors Corporation; Yarmuth Wilsdon Calfo, PLLC; Greer, Herz & Adams, LLP; Stump, Storey, Callahan & Dietrich, PA; DIRECTV End User Development Group; DIRECTV End User Recovery Project, LLC; Secure Signals International; McGinnis Group International, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 14, 2006
- **Citations:** 437 F.3d 923; 2006 WL 335796
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Panner
- **Judges:** Fernandez, Berzon, Panner
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 239 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817490

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- 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
- observing that “only litigation activities which constitute ‘communications] to the court’ may be fairly described as ‘petitions’ ” and that “[s]uch communications include [a] complaint, an answer, a counterclaim and other assorted documents and pleadings, in which plaintiffs …

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817490. Public record. Not legal advice.