With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Anderson-Tra-han simply by becoming embroiled in this conflict, and the existence of Mitchell’s lawsuit, regardless of whether Mitchell prevails. Hood’s claims against Judge Anderson-Trahan stand on their own, and Hood’s amended complaint does not limit his claims to mitigating any damages that he may need to pay to Mitchell. Because Judge Anderson-Trahan is not a properly impleaded party under Rule 14, she must be dismissed as a party. Therefore, we need not address whether Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP statute may be raised by a third party on behalf of an original defendant. Nor do we address whether a party must embrace the speech at issue in order to assert a defense under the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court also certified the question of whether it could a 54, 261 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 88 (1st

A: holding cercla does not preempt californias corporate capacity statute
B: holding that the district of columbias antislapp law could not be applied in federal court in a diversity case because it conflicted with federal rules of civil procedure 12 and 56
C: holding that californias antislapp statute is applicable in federal court
D: holding that californias liquor pricefixing statute violated federal antitrust law
C.