Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07073/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALITY PRODUCTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONA FOODS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07073-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

Re: Dkt. No. 37

The motion to dismiss the counterclaim is granted with leave to amend. As alleged, 

SONA’s counterclaim for tortious interference with business relations is based on 

communications – a letter, phone calls, and in-person visits – that are covered by the litigation 

privilege. See Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b).

1 The communications were made during the pendency of a 

lawsuit between Quality Products and SONA’s supplier, Verka Food International. See generally 

Quality Products, Inc. v. Verka Food Products Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-01418-MJP (W.D. Wash. 

Sept. 20, 2017). The communications informed retailers that the lawsuit involved products that 

they sold and requested information about the sales. Cf. Weiland Sliding Doors & Windows, 

Inc. v. Panda Windows & Doors, LLC, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1040-41 (S.D. Cal. 2011); eCash 

Techs., Inc. v. Guagliardo, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The retailers have a 

significant interest in that dispute because they could potentially be liable for selling infringing 

products, and at the very least their inventory could be affected. Cf. Weiland, 814 F. Supp. 2d at 

1040-41; Sharper Image Corp. v. Target Corp., 425 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2006); 

eCash, 127 F. Supp. 2d at 1082; Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital, 217 Cal. App. 3d 

 

1 The request for judicial notice filed by Quality Products is denied because the documents were 

not necessary to decide the motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:18-cv-07073-VC Document 46 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2

796, 823 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). And the privilege applies regardless of whether the 

communications were made with malice. See Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205, 216 (1990).

Although it seems unlikely that an amended counterclaim could survive a renewed 

motion to dismiss based on the litigation privilege, SONA will be given leave to amend in an 

abundance of caution. Any amended counterclaim must be filed within 21 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07073-VC Document 46 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 2