
    Bruce EKLUND, an individual, Plaintiff-counter-claim-defendant-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, a municipal corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-plaintiff-Appellee, Fred Bonner; Jane Doe Bonner; Gayle Tajima; John Doe Tajima, and their marital community; Yolande Williams; John Doe Williams, and their marital community; Mark Parcher; Jane Doe Parcher, and their marital community, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-35652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 6, 2010.
    Filed Nov. 24, 2010.
    Mark K. Davis, Duncan C. Turner, Esquire, Badgley Mullins Law Group, PLLC, Charles Cleveland Stockmeyer, Cleveland Stockmeyer, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-eounter-claim-defendant-Appel-lant.
    Amy Lowen, City of Seattle Law Department, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee, Fred Bonner.
    Erin L. Overbey, Esquire, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-counter-claimanb-plaintiff-Appel-lee/Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, NOONAN and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Bruce Eklund appeals from the district court’s order granting immunity and awarding attorneys’ fees and statutory penalties to defendants Gayle Tajima, Mark Parcher, and Yolande Williams pursuant to Washington’s anti-SLAPP statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.510. We review the district court’s statutory interpretation de novo and the fee award for abuse of discretion. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen, 538 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2008); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 543 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2008).

In a decision issued after the district court’s order in this case, the Washington Supreme Court found that the Washington anti-SLAPP statute grants immunity only to “a non-government individual or organization.” Segaline v. State Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash.2d 467, 474, 238 P.3d 1107 (2010) (adopting the Washington Court of Appeals’ holding in Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wash.App. 748, 758, 82 P.3d 707 (2004)). As employees of the Seattle Municipal Court, Tajima, Parcher, and Williams are not immune from the claims against them. The award of attorneys’ fees and statutory penalties based on defendants’ success in their anti-SLAPP defense is accordingly vacated.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     