HOLDINGS: [1]-A motion to strike was properly granted under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute in an action for intentional interference with contractual relations because no issue of widespread public concern arose from the allegation that defendant neighbors caused the sale of plaintiff’s house to fall through when they e-mailed the real estate agent and falsely claimed that they planned to construct an addition to their house that would interfere with the sweeping views from plaintiff’s house. The views from a private residence do not involve a matter of public concern; [2]-Attorney fees should have been granted because, in addition to the lack of merit, there was persuasive and unopposed evidence that the motion was filed for purposes of delay. Parties’ litigation lawyer san diego appeal.
Table of Contents
Outcome
Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Sanctions imposed.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff manufacturer sued defendant competitors for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, specifically 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). The manufacturer moved for class certification.
Overview
The manufacturer made welded wire mesh. The competitor manufactured a mesh made with polypropylene strands. Both products were used to reinforce concrete. The manufacturer alleged the competitor engaged in false and misleading comparative advertising and misrepresentation about the competitor’s mesh product. The manufacturer proposed a class of welded mesh manufacturers from across the United States and various foreign countries. The proposed class met some, but not all, of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and it did not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The manufacturer and competitor did not have to use exactly the same channels of distribution to be competitors; the manufacturer had alleged a “discernibly competitive injury” for purposes of the Lanham Act. However, based on the manufacturer’s decision to abandon recovery of damages for lost sales or market share, the manufacturer failed to show that it would adequately represent the class. In addition, individual issues about causation, injury, extent of injury, and timeliness of the suit defeated the claim that a class action would be a superior method of litigation of the dispute.
Outcome
The court denied the motion.