Anti-SLAPP motion

You CAN Join an Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought by Another Party

I remember sitting in court – Judge Banks’ court in Orange County to be specific – and he called a motion for summary judgment that was on calendar, noting that another party had “joined” the motion. I see this all the time. One party files a demurrer, or a motion for summary judgment, or whatever, and an attorney representing a different party says, “hey, that’s a great idea,” and files a “notice of joinder” on the motion. You may have engaged in the behavior yourself.

But as Judge Banks explained to the unfortunate attorney, it doesn’t work that way. As he put it, “when you ‘join’ in a motion, it means only that you are cheering from the sideline, ‘go team go.’” The court has no power to bestow the requested relief on your client.

The reason should be self-evident. The evidence that is offered in support of a motion for summary judgment for one client may have no applicability to another. The missing elements that would justify sustaining a demurrer as to one party may not apply to another. If “joinder” were permitted, then the non-movant would be placed in a terrible quandary. He, she, or it would have to speculate on why the same arguments would apply to the joining party, and try to oppose them.

But with all that said, an anti-SLAPP motion presents a different analysis. Because of the two prong analysis, a defendant can ride on the coattails of another moving defendant. If the movant successfully argues that the conduct falls under the anti-SLAPP statute, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success. The second prong can then be decided without any evidence from the defendant who joined the motion.

In the case of a motion for summary judgment, for example, the moving defendant must present evidence sufficient to establish a complete defense to the targeted claims, or to show that the plaintiff will be unable to prove an essential element. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851. Simply joining the motion of another party does not satisfy this requirement.

But on a special motion to strike, the moving defendant need only demonstrate that the action arises out of protected First Amendment activity. Paul for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1365. In Barak v. Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660-661, the Court concluded that so long as one defendant met that burden, others could join.

But don’t take this too far. Obviously, if the complaint alleges different types of wrongdoing by the defendants, the court may not be able to rule as to the joining defendant. Complicating matters further, there were problems with the plaintiff’s opposition in Barak.

Nonetheless, if you find yourself in a situation where one of the other defendants has filed an anti-SLAPP motion, take a hard look to determine if it would make sense to join in the motion.

Mandated Arbitration Does Not Create a “Protected Activity”


A decision that involves both beer and anti-SLAPP law is right up my alley, so I had to bring you the details of Mission Beverage Company v. Pabst Brewing Company, LLC out of the Second District.

The importance of this case is the lesson it teaches in focusing on whether the conduct in question is indeed “protected activity” such that it satisfies the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. As I have stated here before, the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute has grown and grown, but attorneys must not give short shrift to the first prong.

I. Facts

Defendant and appellant Pabst Brewing Company, LLC (Pabst) is a brewer of beers; among others, Pabst brews such American classics as Pabst Blue Ribbon (a beer I will occasionally enjoy on a hot day), Colt 45 Malt Liquor (good only for cleaning spark plugs), Old Milwaukee (not as bad as Budweiser, but something I would drink only if I had not had a cold beer for over a year and nothing else was available), Schlitz (I don’t recall if I liked it), and Stroh’s (I’ve never tried it).

In January 2009, Pabst entered into a written Distributor Agreement (Agreement) with Mission Beverage Company (Mission). Pabst granted Mission the exclusive right to distribute many of its beers within specifically delineated boundaries within Los Angeles County. In turn, Mission promised to “aggressively promote, encourage, and increase” the sales of, and “customer satisfaction” with, those beers. The parties’ powers to terminate the contract were not the same: Mission could terminate the contract with 60 days’ notice and irrespective of cause, while Pabst could terminate the contract only for one of ten enumerated reasons and then only if it gave Mission an opportunity to cure. One of those ten reasons, memorialized in section 8.2.10 of the Agreement, permits Pabst to terminate the Agreement if Pabst has a “right to terminate” under “applicable state or federal law, statute or regulation.” The Agreement also provides that any and all litigation should occur in court, and contemplates that Mission recover attorney’s fees if it prevails in litigation against Pabst.

In November 2014, Pabst came under new ownership. Three months later, in February 2015, Pabst sent Mission a letter “commencing termination” of the Agreement “pursuant to section 25000.2 and Section 8.2.10 of the Agreement.” Pabst stated that Classic Distributing & Beverage Group, Inc. (Classic) and Beauchamp Distributing Company (Beauchamp) would be replacing Mission as Pabst’s distributor. (I’m sure that would hurt from an economic standpoint, but I have to believe there would be some relief in no longer having to purvey Colt 45 Malt Liquor.) Pabst did not cite any other basis for terminating the Agreement.

The liquor industry is highly regulated, and section 25000.2 provides that when a brewer who acquires the right to manufacture beer “cancels an existing beer wholesaler’s rights to distribute a product,” that successor brewer’s designated replacement distributors must negotiate in good faith – and, failing that, arbitrate – with the existing distributor “to determine the fair market value of the affected distribution rights.” Pretty sweet protection. The brewer can fire you, but you get the fair market value for the distribution rights. Adhering to these procedures, Pabst’s designated distributors tried to negotiate with Mission, but Mission would not go quietly into that good night. It would not agree to a price so in March 2015, Pabst’s sent Mission a letter initiating arbitration.

II. Procedural Background

The following month, Mission responded by suing Pabst for (1) breach of contract, and (2) declaratory relief. Specifically, Mission alleged that Pabst breached the Agreement by “attempting to terminate” the Agreement on the basis of section 25000.2, which did not “provide an independent right to terminate ” Mission also sought a declaration that there was no valid “termination” of the Agreement.

So that left Mission with two litigation fronts – the arbitration and the litigation. Mission made several attempts to halt the ongoing arbitration between itself and Pabst’s newly designated distributors, all to no avail. Mission made an ex parte motion to stay the arbitration, but that motion was denied “without prejudice” to filing a noticed motion. Mission thereafter filed a noticed motion, but that motion was also denied. Not deterred, Mission also asked the arbitrator to dismiss the arbitration, but the arbitrator refused.

The arbitrator issued a final award in October 2015. In the award, the arbitrator made clear that his order “contained no findings, declarations or damages determinations regarding Mission’s pending civil cause of action that Pabst breached the Agreement.” This is an important point, because it made clear that the arbitrator viewed the arbitration and litigation as separate and distinct, with different issues presented. But as to the arbitration, the arbitrator fixed the fair market value of the distributorship rights conferred by the Agreement. Mission did not appeal the award, and Classic and Beauchamp thereafter paid Mission the amount fixed by the arbitrator.

For its part, Pabst refused to recognize the distinction being made by the arbitrator, and filed a motion to strike Mission’s lawsuit under the anti-SLAPP statute. Pabst argued that the “linchpin” of Mission’s lawsuit was Pabst’s “invocation of the statutorily-mandated arbitration process under section 25000.2,” which Pabst asserted was “protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP statute. Pabst further contended that Mission’s lawsuit lacked minimal merit because no “legally viable or non-duplicative remedy” remained once Mission had accepted the payment reflecting the fair market value of its distributorship rights from Classic and Beauchamp.

The theory was not as crazy as it may appear at first blush. Remember, “protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP statute includes activities related to “official proceedings” such as “statutorily required arbitration.” This wasn’t some contract requiring arbitration, but rather was a statutory scheme that forced arbitration, and here Mission was suing Pabst for following that mandated process, according to Pabst’s argument.

But the trial court disagreed and denied the anti-SLAPP motion. It concluded that Mission’s lawsuit was separate and distinct from the arbitration: The lawsuit was “for breach of the contract between Mission and Pabst,” while the arbitration was “between the distributors,” and the primary issue in the lawsuit – “whether the Agreement was validly terminated” – is “an issue separate from (and prerequisite to) the arbitration, not part of it.”

Despite the seemingly clear logic of the trial court’s conclusion, and the obvious problems that will be discussed below, Pabst appealed.

III. A Primer on Beer Law

To fully understand the reasoning of the Trial Court and Court of Appeal, a primer on beer law is required. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Act) divides up the distribution chain for alcohol into three tiers – namely, (1) “manufacturers,” (2) “wholesalers” or distributors, and (3) “retailers”; and generally prohibits each from having an ownership interest in the others.

Section 25000.2 dictates the procedures to be followed when a “successor beer manufacturer acquires the rights to manufacture” held by a brewer, and then “cancels any of the [brewer’s] existing beer [distributor’s] rights to distribute the product.” The successor brewer “cancels” a distribution contract if it “terminates, reduces, does not renew, does not appoint or reappoint, or causes any of the same.” The pertinent procedure is as follows. First, the successor brewer must “notify” the existing distributor of its “intent to cancel any of the existing distributor’s rights to distribute the product.” Second, the entity the new brewer wants to be its new distributor – whom the Act calls the “successor beer manufacturer’s designee” – is required to “negotiate in good faith” with the existing distributor to “determine the fair market value of the affected distribution rights.” “Fair market value” is defined as “all elements of value, including, but not limited to, goodwill.” If the existing distributor and the successor brewer’s preferred distributor can “agree to the fair market value,” then the successor brewer’s preferred distributor “shall compensate the existing” distributor “in the agreed amount.” If they “are unable to mutually agree,” then the successor brewer’s preferred distributor “shall initiate arbitration to determine the issue of compensation for the fair market value of the affected distribution rights” following the time lines set forth in the statute, and if the existing distributor does not appeal the arbitration award, the successor brewer’s preferred distributor must pay the existing distributor that amount.

IV. Analysis

A. What conduct is the basis for the challenged claim(s), and does that conduct constitute protected activity?

Pabst argued that the trial court erred in concluding that Mission’s breach of contract and declaratory relief claims did not arise from protected activity because (1) those claims are based upon Pabst’s letter purporting to cancel the Agreement, and (2) that letter invokes section 25000.2’s procedures and is accordingly preparatory to statutorily mandated arbitration, which constitutes an official proceeding within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1) and (2).

1. What conduct by Pabst is Mission challenging?

A claim is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute only if conduct constituting protected activity “itself is the wrong complained of.” Park, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1060. Thus, where a plaintiff’s claim is based upon “an action or decision” of the defendant, it is not enough that some protected activity by the defendant precedes that action or decision, that some protected activity is the means of communicating that action or decision, or that some protected activity constitutes evidence of that action or decision. To fall under the anti-SLAPP statute, the challenged action or decision itself must be protected activity.

This is where so many attorneys go wrong. As occurred here, the attorney will see that a mandated action precipitated the complaint, and therefore jump to the conclusion that the complaint is arising from that protected activity. Close, but no cigar. The attorney needs to take one more baby step back to get a slightly larger view of the issue. The protected activity may be what lead to the complaint, but it does not necessarily follow that the complaint is challenging the protected activity. Where a plaintiff’s claim attacks only the defendant’s decision to undertake a particular act, and if that decision is not itself protected activity, that claim falls outside the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute.

For example, in Park (above), the California Supreme Court held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to a claim challenging a university’s decision to deny tenure to a professor, even though the decision was communicated in writing and even though the university dean’s comments supplied evidence of discriminatory animus. In Ulkarim v. Westfield LLC (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275-1276, 1279, the court held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to a claim challenging a landlord’s decision to terminate a tenancy, even though the landlord subsequently served a notice to quit and filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit. And in McConnell v. Innovative Artists Talent & Literary Agency, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 169, 176-177, the court held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to a claim challenging an employer’s decision to wrongfully terminate employees, even though the employer later sent a letter terminating those employees. Only when the decision that the plaintiff attacks is itself protected activity will the anti-SLAPP statute apply.

In this case, Mission’s breach of contract and declaratory relief claims challenge Pabst’s decision to terminate the Agreement. That is because both claims challenge Pabst’s right to terminate the Agreement and, in particular, Pabst’s assertion that section 25000.2 provides such a right. Pabst’s subsequent letter merely communicated Pabst’s decision to terminate, but “that communication does not convert [Mission’s] suit into one arising from such speech.” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1068.)

2. Is that conduct protected activity?

The Court of Appeal properly concluded that Mission’s claims did not involve protected activity for two reasons. First, Mission’s claims are based upon Pabst’s decision to terminate the Agreement – not Pabst’s subsequent letter communicating that decision. That decision precedes and is unconnected with any official proceeding. Second, that letter did not qualify as protected activity. Although section 25000.2’s mandatory arbitration undoubtedly qualifies as an official proceeding under the governing precedent, Pabst’s letter is not preparatory to such an arbitration. That is because section 25000.2 first contemplates that the existing distributor and successor brewer’s designated distributors negotiate in good faith and resort to arbitration only if negotiations fail. Like the insured who files a claim not knowing whether the insurer will pay the claim or fight the claim in litigation, Pabst had “no reason to believe” that arbitration “will follow” from its letter because Mission, Classic, and Beauchamp could well have negotiated a settlement and obviated any need for arbitration.

B. Do Mission’s Claims Have Minimal Merit?

Since the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis was not met, the second prong becomes moot, but for fun let’s analyze that as well.

Pabst argued that Mission’s two claims lacked the minimal merit necessary to withstand its anti-SLAPP motion. Specifically, Pabst asserted that Mission could not prove (1) any breach of contract because section 25000.2 independently confers upon brewers a right to terminate a distribution contract, or (2) any damages arising from any breach because Mission was made whole by Classic’s and Beauchamp’s payment reflecting the fair market value of Mission’s distribution rights. Because any breach of contract claim requires proof of a contractual duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages, and because Mission’s declaratory relief claim that there was no valid termination in effect seeks a declaration that Pabst breached the contract, Mission was required to make out a prima facie case that Pabst breached the Agreement and that Mission was damaged by that breach.

The trial court did not bother to analyze the second prong, but the Court of Appeal took the opportunity, as permitted by Schwarzburd v. Kensington Police Protection & Community Services Dist. Bd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1345, 1355 and Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 615-616), on the grounds that an analysis of section 25000.2 was important.

1. Has Mission made a prima facie showing that Pabst breached the Agreement?

Because Pabst’s termination of the Agreement rested solely on its position that section 25000.2 confers upon brewers an independent right to terminate a distribution contract, whether Mission has made out a prima facie case for the element of breach turns on whether section 25000.2 confers such a right. This is a question of statutory interpretation, which the court reviewed de novo. (Weatherford v. City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241, 1247.)

It concluded that the text of section 25000.2 sets forth the procedures that must be followed when a “successor beer manufacturer acquires the rights to manufacture a product” and “cancels any of the existing distributor’s rights to distribute the product.” The statute prescribes what happens after the successor brewer cancels, but nothing in the statute’s text expressly grants the successor brewer the precursor right to cancel distribution rights. More to the point, nothing in the statute’s text expressly grants the successor beer manufacturer the further right to cancel distribution rights regardless of its contractual obligations with the existing distributor.

Nor could the Court infer an implied right to cancel distribution contracts – with or without impunity – from section 25000.2’s legislative history.

“To begin, section 25000.2 was sponsored by the California Beer and Beverage Distributors. It seems highly unlikely that an organization representing distributors would sponsor legislation that would deprive their members of their negotiated contractual rights. Moreover, section 25000.2 was enacted to address a specific problem: Brewers were buying up and consolidating more and more brands of beer and then seeking to use their own network of distributors, so there was a need for “an authorized and structured process to insure the timely payment of fair and market-based compensation for the transfer of brands between” distributors. Solving this problem does not require brewers to be granted an unvarnished right to terminate their distributorship contracts.”

Thus, Pabst’s argument was built entirely on a false premise. It claimed that having notified Mission that its rights were being terminated, arbitration naturally followed, and both were protected activities. But it still remained to be determined if Pabst had the right to terminate to begin with under the terms of the Agreement.

The Court goes on to list several more reasons that Pabst’s argument fails, but one in particular was the sort that before I was through the first pages of the decision, I was scratching my head wondering how Pabst could not see this point or chose to ignore it.

Pabst argued that section 25000.2 must be read to foreclose any lawsuit by an existing distributor against the brewer because such a lawsuit will always be either unripe or moot. Here was the reasoning of Pabst, which can be a little difficult to follow.

Under the scheme of section 25000.2, at least as Pabst interpreted it, (1) the termination notice is sent, (2) but the original distributor goes right on distributing until, (3) the new distributor pays the fair market value for the distributorship, whether that number is determined by agreement or arbitration. Thus, according to Pabst, there is no harm no foul to the prior distributor. It continued to make its profits up to the time it was paid in full for the distributorship.

I’m sure you begin to see the flaws in that argument. By that reasoning, no business is harmed by an unauthorized takeover, so long as it is paid the fair market value of the business.

According to the reasoning of Pabst, once the distributor is paid, any lawsuit instantly becomes moot because the payment makes the distributor whole and makes any declaratory relief redress for a “past wrong.”

The Court of Appeal saw the flaws as well, finding that Pabst was incorrect that a distributor’s claim for breach of contract is not ripe as long as it continues to distribute the brewer’s beer because, quite simply, the distributor may sue for anticipatory breach. It also concluded that Pabst was incorrect in arguing that a distributor’s claim is moot once the newly designated distributors remit the fair market value of the distribution rights because, additional damages may be available if there is a wrongful breach and there remains a live “actual controversy” warranting declaratory relief regarding those additional damages and the wrongful breach that caused them.

Perhaps Pabst can be forgiven for thinking there would be no future profits from the distribution of its beer, because of the Colt 45 component.

So, to summarize, when considering an anti-SLAPP motion, always examine the “protected activity”. Mission was suing for breach of contract and declaratory relief, arising from Pabst’s termination of the contract. Even if Pabst was 100% confident that it had the unfettered right to terminate the contract (a position that turned out to be incorrect), this remained a contract claim and did not involve any protected activities within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute.

SLAPP021 – Anti-SLAPP Motions Against Mixed Causes of Action

California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-300x300 (1)

We discuss the very important case of Baral v. Schnitt, in which the California Supreme Court finally dealt with the split of authorities regarding how to deal with complaints with mixed causes of action; those that contain allegations of both protected and unprotected activities. This is probably the most important anti-SLAPP decision of the decade.

We also take a quick look at Hassell v. Bird, in which the Court of Appeal held that Yelp can be ordered to take down a false and defamatory post, even if it was not a party to the action.

Finally, I tell the tale of a very entertaining victory we had in Norwalk Superior Court, in front of a finger-wagging judge.

Anti-SLAPP Motions in Federal Court – Some Judges Still Complaining

No Whiners Annoying Complainers Irritating Problem Customer
On August 3, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in the case Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Robert Hirsh.

The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Robert Hirsh’s anti-SLAPP motion (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16) to strike the second amended complaint filed by Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America. Hirsh had alleged that Travelers’ claims arose out of his representation of Travelers’ insured, Visemer De Gelt, as Cumis counsel; and his activity was therefore protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Ninth Circuit held that because Travelers’ causes of action were not based on an act in furtherance of Hirsh’s right of petition or free speech, they did not “arise from” protected activity, and thus did not satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The Court also held that Travelers established a probability of prevailing on the merits sufficient to survive a motion to strike. The Court further held that California’s litigation privilege, Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b), did not bar the suit because the causes of action arose from Hirsh’s post-settlement conduct, not his communications with De Gelt in settling a prior lawsuit.

Should we allow anti-SLAPP motions in Federal Court?

But like a number of appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit, Judge Kozinski and Judge Gould, although they concurred in the opinion, could not pass up the opportunity to complain about how anti-SLAPP motions in federal court were making them work too hard. Judge Kozinski decried that the existing case law is wrong, and he would urge the court to follow the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, which held that anti-SLAPP motions do not belong in federal court because they directly conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the very least, Judge Kozinski urged the court to reconsider the holding in Batzel v. Smith, which allows defendants who lose anti-SLAPP motions to bring an immediate interlocutory appeal.

With all due respect, the reasoning of Judge Kozinski does not withstand scrutiny, as will be shown hereinbelow. What follows is Judge Kozinski’s concurring opinion, with my response to him in red on each of his points. Read the rest of this entry »

‘American Hustle’ Producers Can’t Nuke Defamation Lawsuit – Hollywood Reporter

Paul Brodeur, a science writer who claims he was defamed by something Jennifer Lawrence said in David O. Russell’s 2013 film American Hustle, has survived an attempt to knock out his $1 million lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

Source: www.hollywoodreporter.com

This is such an entertaining and ridiculous lawsuit.

In the movie American Hustle, Jennifer Lawrence plays a character named Rosalyn. The movie is set in the 70s, when microwave ovens were still relatively new, and Rosalyn makes the statement that microwaves cook the nutrition out of food. When another character questions that claim, she holds up a magazine and responds, “I read it in an article by Paul Brodeur.”

Paul Brodeur is a real person, and claims that the fictional statement from a fictional character hurts his reputation. During the 70s, Brodeur wrote about the dangers of microwave ovens, but he never stated that they take the nutrition out of food, and he therefore claims that the idea that he would have written this (fictional) article stating that food loses its nutrition when cooked in a microwave is akin to having Carl Sagan say that the sun revolves around the earth.

Brodeur should have been flattered that anyone remembered him, and laughed at the joke, but this is America, so he sued for a million dollars, claiming the statement was defamatory. The movie makers responded with an anti-SLAPP motion.

At the time, I gave the motion little chance of success, because I didn’t think the movie makers would be able to meet the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, and show that this was a matter of public interest. Apparently the judge agreed, and denied the motion.

[UPDATE (June 6, 2016):] Cases such as this continue to show the importance of the automatic right of appeal, even from denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.

Paul Brodeur’s ridiculous lawsuit survived an anti-SLAPP motion, dooming the defendant (Atlas Entertainment, Inc.) to litigate issues through trial, were it not for the automatic right of appeal. That ability to demand a second look at the applicability of the anti-SLAPP statute resulted in the dismissal of this waste of court resources.

As it had to, the Court of Appeal held: Read the rest of this entry »

When Considering an Anti-SLAPP Motion, Focus on the Gravamen of the Complaint

Fans on stadium game panorama view

I am the anti-SLAPP guy, and I’d be the last to criticize creative applications of the anti-SLAPP statute. But sometimes it is as though the attorney bringing an anti-SLAPP motion only read the Cliff Notes on the process. He knows some of the buzz words, such as “public interest” and “protected speech”, but lacks the big picture. When considering an anti-SLAPP motion, you must consider the true gravamen of the complaint.

Case in point is the recent Court of Appeal opinion in Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. B264493), arising from the efforts to build a football stadium in the City of Carson. The ruling of the Court of Appeal, published on May 31, 2016, can be found here.

Carson wanted to build a stadium and entertainment complex, and was hoping to woo the NFL to relocate a team there. Carson hired a lobbyist, of sorts, Richard Rand, giving him an exclusive arrangement to negotiate with the NFL.

Things between Rand and the city got off to a rocky start, leading Rand to successfully sue Carson for civil rights violations, alleging that the Mayor had demanded a bribe. The city and Rand both appealed, with the city claiming it had never happened, and Rand claiming he should get more in damages.

The parties eventually settled, but Carson did not honor Rand’s exclusivity arrangement. Rand sued again, this time for breach of contract and other claims.

“Well,” thought the city’s attorneys, “this whole football stadium thing is generating a ton of public interest, and anti-SLAPP motions can be brought where the situation is a matter of public interest, so let’s bring an anti-SLAPP motion.”

And that’s just what they did. The city challenged Rand’s action with an anti-SLAPP motion.

“Well,” thought the judge, “this whole football stadium thing is generating a ton of public interest, and anti-SLAPP motions can be brought where the situation is a matter of public interest, so I guess I should grant the anti-SLAPP motion.”

And that’s just what he did. Apparently having read the same Cliff Notes, the judge granted the anti-SLAPP motion. Rand appealed. Read the rest of this entry »

SLAPP019 – Five Best Published Anti-SLAPP Decisions (so far) in 2016

California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-300x300 (1)

On Episode 19 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we go through my five favorite reported anti-SLAPP decisions from the first half of 2016.

But first we begin with a cautionary tale of an attorney who is being sued for malpractice for failing to have me review his complaint before it was filed! (OK, there’s a back story here, so be sure to listen to this episode to find out what I’m talking about.)

Then, we turn to the five best published anti-SLAPP decisions from the first half of 2016. The bold cases are the top five; the non-bolded are other cases I discuss as well.

Lanz v. Goldstone (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 441

Another cautionary tale, this time of an attorney who followed the old adage, “the best defense is a good offense.” He tried to intimidate an attorney from seeking his legal fees, and bought himself a malicious prosecution action in the process. You’ll learn a lot about malicious prosecution actions and under what circumstances they can survive an anti-SLAPP motion.

Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43

Speaking of malicious prosecution actions, this is the seminal case.

Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1135

“When the proceeding terminates other than on the merits, the court must examine the REASONS for termination to see if the disposition reflects the opinion of the court OR THE PROSECUTING PARTY that the action would not succeed.”

Karnazes v. Ares (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 344

Speaking of over-pleading, our second case is Karnazes v. Ares, decided by the Second District in January of 2016. In this case, the plaintiff alleged 22 – count em – 22 causes of action against the defendants. Karnazes lost to an anti-SLAPP motion, but made some interesting arguments in opposition to that motion.

Sweetwater Union School District v. Gilbane Building Company (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 19

Are political bribes protected by the anti-SLAPP statute? Listen to find out (and the answer will likely surprise you). And find out how you can support an anti-SLAPP motion with declarations without using declarations.

Crossroads Investors v. Federal National Mortgage Association (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 529

It may look like litigation, and it may quack like litigation, but that doesn’t necessarily make it litigation for purposes of the litigation privilege and the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

JM Manufacturing v. Phillips & Cohen (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87

Yet one more action against an attorney; in this case an attorney who was so proud of his firm’s trial victory that he published a press release and bought the firm a defamation action. It was a split decision.

And finally, in the after show, I provide an appeal tip that might save you from some embarrassment.

SLAPP017 – An Introduction to California SLAPP Law and Anti-SLAPP Motions

California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-300x300 (1)

In Episode 17 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we go back to basics, with an introduction to the fundamental concepts behind California’s SLAPP Law and anti-SLAPP motions.

The good news is that although it took some 25 years for attorneys to begin recognizing the impact of California’s anti-SLAPP statutes on litigation in the state, they are now aware of the statute (sometimes painfully so). But it is clear that there are still some misconceptions about the law, including the fundamental terminology and procedures. Listen to this episode, and you’ll have a great understanding of what a SLAPP is, and what sort of activities fall under that anti-SLAPP statutes. Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Cosby to Give New Deposition in Janice Dickinson’s Defamation Lawsuit

Bill Cosby will give a new deposition in the defamation lawsuit from Janice Dickinson over her allegations of sexual assault.

The former supermodel told Entertainment Tonight in November 2014 the comedian drugged her into unconsciousness and raped her. Cosby’s former attorney Martin Singer responded in a statement to the media calling Dickinson’s story “an outrageous defamatory lie” and “completely fabricated.”

In a hearing Monday, judge Debre K. Weintraub ordered Dickinson will depose Cosby and Singer by Nov. 25 on whether they knew if her allegations were true before denying them to the press. The testimony will follow Cosby’s recent deposition in Judy Huth’s lawsuit (which will be sealed until a Dec. 22 hearing in which the sides will argue if the testimony should be public).

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

Recent developments in one of the actions against Bill Cosby illustrate the availability of limited discovery after an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, and how defamation claims are sometimes used to resurrect actions that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitation.

Joining the bandwagon of Cosby accusers (or perhaps she was the first) Janice Dickinson stated that she was drugged and raped by Cosby many years ago. Any action for that alleged assault would be far past the statute of limitations, but when Cosby denied the allegations, Dickinson was then free to sue for defamation, claiming that by denying that the rape had occurred, Cosby was in essence calling her a liar. (Or in this case, Cosby’s attorney actually did call her a liar.)

This is a common tactic, and puts an accused party in a precarious position. They can remain silent, in which case everyone will think and the press will report that they must be guilty since they are not denying the charges, or they can speak up and deny the charges, in which case they face a defamation action. Cosby chose to claim innocence, and the defamation suit followed.

Cosby responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, and that led to Dickinson’s request for leave to take Cosby’s deposition.

Celebrities enjoy a benefit that the rest of us plebes don’t, and that is that anything said about them is deemed to be a matter of public interest, triggering the anti-SLAPP statute. The downside is that said celebrities are deemed to be public figures, and given the inherent ability of celebrities to respond to criticism by simply calling a press conference, the law imposes an extra requirement on them to prove defamation. To successfully sue for defamation, they must show that the purportedly defamatory statements were made with malice. Since Dickinson is also a celebrity, she must therefore show that when Cosby called her a liar, he did so with malice.

One way to prove malice is to show that the person making the comment knew it wasn’t true. And thus we go full circle. Dickinson says Cosby raped her, Cosby says he didn’t, so Dickinson says that’s proof of malice because he raped her and knows it.

When an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, the plaintiff can request leave to conduct discovery, and here Dickinson requested leave to take Cosby’s deposition, to prove the malice. It’s a long shot, because the only way Cosby’s testimony would prove malice is if he admits that he raped Dickinson and knew he had raped her when he denied the claim. (Or, I suppose, Cosby could get befuddled and say he doesn’t remember.)

See on Scoop.itCalifornia SLAPP Law

A Real-World Application of the Anti-SLAPP Motion Analysis

I was recently retained to consult on an anti-SLAPP motion in Orange County Superior Court, and the hearing on the motion was set for today. This particular judge is very good about issuing tentative rulings, but the rulings are often published on-line just shortly before the 1:30 hearing time. Knowing the tentative ruling is essential for oral argument since you know where the judge is going, and can address those specific points. (Truth be told, attorneys are seldom successful in getting a judge to reverse his or her tentative, but sometimes it can be done when the judge has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law that can be cleared up, or has misapplied the law to the facts.)

So my procedure is to open a window to the tentative rulings, which will be the rulings from the prior week, and periodically refresh the window until the current rulings appear. When our tentative ruling finally did pop up, it was just to inform us that the judge had decided to continue the hearing on our motion for a few weeks. This can happen when a judge’s docket doesn’t leave him or her enough time to work up and decide all the motions, or they just think more time is needed to decide a particularly challenging motion. I prefer to think that our legal analysis was so impressive that the judge just wanted more time to savor it, but who knows.

But while I was on the list of tentative rulings, I saw that the judge had decided an anti-SLAPP motion in another case. The ruling piqued my interest, so I pulled a copy of the cross-complaint to see what the case was all about. That will be the subject matter of this article.

I present the case summary and ruling here because they present a great example of how a judge analyzes an anti-SLAPP motion. I get numerous calls and emails from potential clients either wanting to prosecute an anti-SLAPP motion or needing to defend against one, where the facts they want to present are largely speculation. But to borrow an old cliché, an anti-SLAPP motion is where the rubber meets the road, and your allegations must be provable facts. The case also presents a very good example of just how expansive the litigation privilege can be. I will also take this opportunity to discuss the proof necessary for the particular causes of action that were pursued in this case. Read the rest of this entry »

Aaron Morris, Attorney
Aaron Morris
Morris & Stone, LLP

Tustin Financial Plaza
17852 17th St., Suite 201
Tustin, CA 92780

(714) 954-0700

Email Aaron Morris
Latest Podcast
California SLAPP Law Podcast
SLAPP Law Podcast

Click on PLAY Button above to listen to California SLAPP Law Podcast, or listen on Stitcher Radio, iTunes and TuneIn Radio!

Subscribe
SiteLock
Section 6158.3 Notice
NOTICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6158.3: The outcome of any case will depend on the facts specific to that case. Nothing contained in any portion of this web site should be taken as a representation of how your particular case would be concluded, or even that a case with similar facts will have a similar result. The result of any case discussed herein was dependent on the facts of that case, and the results will differ if based on different facts.