
    David BECKHAM, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAUER PUBLISHING COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; Bauer Magazine L.P., a Delaware limited liability partnership; Bauer Media Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Bauer, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Bauer North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Michelle Lee, an individual, Defendants-Appellees, and Irma Nici, an individual, Defendant. David Beckham, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bauer Publishing Company, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; Bauer Magazine L.P., a Delaware limited liability partnership; Bauer Media Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Bauer, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Bauer North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Michelle Lee, an individual, Defendants-Appellees, and Irma Nici, an individual, Defendant.
    Nos. 11-55441, 11-56010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 11, 2013.
    Joshua Yale Karp, Greenberg. Traurig LLP, Philip Kelly, Richard B. Kendall, Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Alonzo B. Wickers, IV, Esquire, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Camille Caiman, Elizabeth Anne McNamara, Esquire, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Paul Rolf Jensen, Esquire, Jensen & Associates, Ape., Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed.'R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Beckham appeals the district court’s order granting an anti-SLAPP motion to strike his complaint against Bauer Publishing Company; Bauer Magazine; Bauer Media Group, Inc.; Bauer, Inc.; Bauer North America, Inc.; and Michelle Lee (the “Bauer defendants”). We dismiss his appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Because the district court’s order dismissed Beckham’s claims against some, but not all, of the defendants in the action, it is not an appealable final order. See Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1415-16 (9th Cir.1985). Moreover, this court does not have jurisdiction over his appeal under the collateral order doctrine because the district court’s order granted immunity to the Bauer defendants. See DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp., No. 11-56934, 706 F.Bd 1009, 2013 WL 119716, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Jan.10, 2013) (treating California anti-SLAPP motions as a form of immunity from suit); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). An order granting immunity to some defendants before trial can be “fully and effectively reviewed after final judgment.” Branson v. City of Los Ange-les, 912 F.2d 334, 335 (9th Cir.1990).

Although Beckham argues that we should follow California law, which allows interlocutory appeals from orders granting anti-SLAPP motions to strike, we decline to do so. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 904. l(a)(13). Federal law governs our jurisdiction in this case and under federal law, we lack appellate jurisdiction. See Englert v. MacDonell, 551 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 3Ó-3.
     