limited discovery to uncover the identity of the speaker so that the district court could assess its jurisdiction. This question is now moot and we need not resolve it. Because we hold that Judge Anderson-Trahan was not a properly im-pleaded party under Rule 14, she must be dismissed. This case is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. * Pursuant to Fifth Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . We note that there is disagreement among courts of appeals as to whether state anti-SLAPP laws are applicable in federal court at all. See Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., L.L.C., 783 F.3d 1328, 1334 (D.C.Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); but see Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d
holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits holding that maines antislapp statute could be applied in the district court because federal rules of civil procedure 12 and 56 are not so broad as to attempt  to answer the same question as the statute holding that dismissal pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 56 did not violate the seventh amendment 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 holding that californias antislapp statute is applicable in federal court