Mitchell v. Hood

614 Fed.Appx. 137 (5th Cir. 2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mitchell (P) lost a state judicial election to Ernestine 'Teena' Anderson-Trahan. Judge Anderson-Trahan won by 266 votes. The day before the polls opened 3,000 residents received a postcard that accused P of violently attacking an 'innocent pregnant woman.' The postcard indicated that it was 'Paid for by B. Hood.' P sued Hood (D) on four claims of 'abuse of right.” D denied the allegations and asserted the affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. D filed a third-party complaint and impleaded Judge Anderson-Trahan and Kelvin McClinton as third-party defendants. D asserted that he had no interest in the judicial election and no knowledge of, or participation in, the creation or distribution of the postcard. D impleaded Judge Anderson-Trahan and McClinton under Rule 14 for fraud, misrepresentation, abuse of right, and injury to personal and professional reputation. P amended her complaint to add McClinton. P did not add Judge Anderson-Trahan as a defendant. P's amended complaint stated that 'McClinton has admitted to D that . . . Anderson-Trahan was associated with the design, printing, and/or mailing of the postcard.' Judge Anderson-Trahan moved to dismiss D's claims under Louisiana's anti-SLAPP law. P argued that Judge Anderson-Trahan was not entitled to invoke Article 971 because Judge Anderson-Trahan was not a proper third-party defendant. P argued that Judge Anderson-Trahan could not invoke Article 971 because Judge Anderson-Trahan denied making the statements in the postcard and because Article 971 can only be invoked by a defendant who embraces the relevant speech. D opposed the motion.

The district court ordered limited discovery. Judge Anderson-Trahan contends that limited discovery is improper and moved to bring this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).