Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/32491740/Calibra-v-Variety-BC433320-Notice-of-Ruling
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 00:53:24
Document Index: 480456051

Matched Legal Cases: ['§425', '§42', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 16202', '§ 17200', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§425']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more﻿8 9David Jacobs, Esq. (State Bar No. 73545) Paul C. Burkholder, Esq. (State Bar No. 117795) 2 Lauren K. Rifenbark, Esq. (State Bar No. 228194) EPSTEiN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 3 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90067-2506 4 Telephone: 310.S56.886l Facsimile: 310.553.2165 5 djacobs@ebglaw.com pburkholder@ebglaw.com 6 lrifenbark@ebglaw.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant V ARJETY, INC. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 17 18 19 20 21 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 12,2010 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17 of 23 the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at III N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 24 90012, Defendant Variety ("Variety") moved to dismiss PlaintiffCalibra LLC's ("Plaintiff') 25 First Amended Complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure §425.l6. David Jacobs and 26 Lauren Rifenbark of Epstein Becker & Green appeared on behalf of Variety. Timothy D. 27 McGonigle appeared on behalfofPlaintiff. ~~----------------------------------------------------~~-=~- LA:738283vl Notice of Ruling 11 12 CALIBRA. PICTURES, LLC~ a California Limited Liability Company, 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. VARIETY, a New Y ork corporation; and 16 DOES 1-100, inclusive, 28··' CASE NO. BC 433320 [Assigned to Hon. Richard E. Rico, Dept. 17] NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT V ARIETY'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (C.C.P. §42S.16) DATE: TIME: DEPT: May 12,2010 8:30 a.m. 17 [Complaint filed March 9,2010; First Amended Complaint filed March 10,2010] 1 The Court granted Variety's motion in its entirety. including its request for attorneys' 2 fees and costs, and ordered Variety to give notice. 3 On May 12,2010, the Court issued its Minute Order, in which it adopted its tentative 4 ruling. Attached hereto as a Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Court's Minute Order, 5 dated May 12,2010. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Court's 6 tentative ruling, dated May 12, 2010. 7 8 DATED: May 13, 2010 9 10 Respectfully submitted, EPSTEIN BEC~gl~/~~CG~JiN, P.C. ..': .. .,_// J/(/ ... ;... / ~~ By: '",- Jiv~"-' IX(vrnJACOBs PAUL C. BURKHOLDER LAUREN K. RIFENBARK Attorneys for Defendant V ARlETY, INC n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 2 - LA:738283v 1 Notice of Ruling Exhibit A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES II HO~ORABLE RICHARD E _ RICO JlDGE A. ORTIZ I DEPT. 17 1)\)'1: C5./12/10 DEPLTY CLERK 'IOf'.:ORAJ.ll.[ 9 JlDGE PRO TE~l ELECTRONIC RECORDING ~IO:-';ITOR B. CHAVEZ, C.A. Deputy Shenff S. ALMAGUER-~·lILLER #8767 Reporter 8:30 am BC433320 Plamu(f Counsel T. Me GONIGLE, (X) CALIBP~ PICTURES LLC vs Defendant D. JACOBS, (X) Counsel L. RIFENBARK, (X) VARIETY ! :"iATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: I ! NOTICE OF DEFEND_Zl.NT VARIETY, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE; I I !The matter is called for motion and special motion to strike. INC. FOR MOTION ~~D The court's tentative is adopted as it order as f o Ll ows : Defendant Variety's special motion to strike pursuant Ito Civil Code of Procedure Section 425.16 is granted in its entirety. Upon r'e c e i pt; of the appropriate declaration from IDefendanL Variety, attorneys' fees and costs will be Igranted. See Civil Code of Procedure Section 425.16(c) Icounsel for Defendant is ordered to give notice of rul:.ng. Page 1 of 1 DEPT. 17 MINUTES ENTERED 05/12/10 COUNTY CLERK Exhibit B ". Honorable Richard Rico Department 17 Wednesday-May 12, 2010 Calendar No.9 PROCEEDINGS Calibra Pictures, LLC v, Variety Be 433 320 Defendant Variety's Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to CCP § 425.16 ANALYSIS Defendant Variety brings this Anti·SLAPP motion pursuant to CiC}'. § 425. 16(e)(3) and (e)(4), as to Plaimiff Calibra Pictures, LLC's ("Calibra") entire First Amended Complaint. Defendant Variety contends that the review published in the magazine was protected speech that was connection with an issue of public interest and that the contract signed in no way related to the publishing of reviews, positive or negative, of the motion picture "Iron Cross." In opposition, Plaintiff Calibra argues that the free speech was waived and even if it was not, the action does not arise out of the free speech. In reply, Defendant Variety rebuts the contention that the speech was waived and repeats their contentions that the action arises from protected speech. The motion is granted as explained below. Cause of Action Arising from Free Speech: Under the anti·SLAPP statute, a defendant must demonstrate that the challenged action arises from free speech. c.c.P. § 425.16(b); see also City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78. The principal thrust or gravamen of the cause of action must be considered in determining whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies. Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.AppAth 181, 188. Here, the FAC rests entirely on the publication of the negative review of the movie "Iron Cross." One of the remedies prayed for is injunctive relief to prevent any further comment. F AC 14 of prayer. The critical point is whether the cause of action itself was based on an act in furtherance of the defendant's right of petition or free speech. City a/Cotati, 29 Cal.4th at 78. Here, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract for "sending a film critic, Robert Koehler to see and to review the Film." FAC 136. But for the review, according to Plaintiff, there would be no breach. Each subsequent cause of action relies on Koehler's negative review. Thus, the causes of action arise from speech. A party who has validly contracted 110t to speak or petition has in effect "waived" the right to the anti-SLAPP statute's protection in the event he or she later breaches that contract. Weil & Brown, Civ.Pro.Before Trial (2008) Chap. 7-Anti~SLAPP Motions, 7:518 at p. 7(U)-3. There is no evidence that Defendant Variety waived their right by contracting not to speak. Act in Furtherance of a Person's Right of Petition or Free Speech: hAs used in this section, 'act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue' includes .... (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." C. C.P. .9' 42S.16{e). Here, the negative review was published in online forum, t.·n - ~--- ._ ......... -~- .:......:.__- '. Variety.corn, and in its print publication "Daily Variety." FAC '36. A public forum has been extended beyond traditional physical settings, such as streets, sidewalks and parks for the purposes of this statute. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.AppAth 468. In that case, a newsletter with a circulation of only several thousand was considered a public forum. ld. Some newspapers and media outlets are not considered public forum because access is limited and selective, however the printed edition run by Defendant Variety is in wide circulation. See ~Veinberg v, Feist (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1130-l131. The California Supreme Court has found that websites accessible to the public are public forums for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. Barrell v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33,41 fn. 4. Here, the website and its print publication arc open to a vast number of readers. Users of the website arc able to post comments, share articles, and link to social networks. Gray Decl. ~7. The website and print edition where the review was published are public forums. Defendant Variety must also establish that the statement involved an issue of public interest. e.c.P. § 425.16(e)(3), (4). Public interest is found when the subject statement is (1) concerning a person or entity in the public eye; (2) conduct that could directly affect large numbers of people beyond the participants; or (3) a topic of widespread interest. Rivero v. American Fed. Of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 924. The issue does not have to be of public importance Or significance to fall be considered "public interest." Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.AppAth 1027, ] 042 (discussing issues in a tabloid to be of public interest). Defendant Variety argues that the review falls under the third classification, widespread interest. Calibra alleges that they contracted with Defendant Variety because of its readership and that the partnership resulted in "an immediate success, with countless e-mail requests from both BAFfA and AMPAS and SAG members for DVD screener copies of Iron Cross. FAC 120. In so alleging, Plaintiff essentially admits that that motion picture was of widespread interest. Additionally, Defendant Variety reviews over] ,200 films a year. Gray Decl. ~6. To be reviewed, the films must be playing for paid admission or screened for the public. ld. Defendant Variety has satisfied the first prong of the analysis, that the written publication in both the website and printed publication, falls under the anti-SLAPP statute as it is speech in a public forum related to a public interest. Probability of Prevailing on Claims: Because Defendant has satisfied the first prong, it is incumbent upon Plaintiff Calibra to establish the probability that they will prevail on the claims asserted against Defendant Variety. See c.c.P. § 425.16(b). To do this, PlaintiffCalibra must demonstrate that the F AC is legally sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts sufficient to support a favorable judgment ifthe evidence submitted is credited. Weil & Brown, supra at 7: 1007, p. 7(1)-38. The burden is on Plaintiff to produce evidence that would be admissible at trial to proffer a prima facie showing of facts supporting a judgment in plaintiffs favor. Chavez v .. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1087. Breach ofConlract ',. '., The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damage. watt Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178. Plaimiff Calibra and Defendant Variety did have an agreement. FAC, Exhibit A. However, this agreement was for the screening and advertising of the movie "Iron Cross." ld. Nowhere does the agreement mention anything regarding reviews. Plainti ff Calibra alleges that Defendant Variety breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by allowing a film critic to review the film and then publishing the negative review regarding the film. FAe ~36. However, there is a complete separation between the advertising and editorial staff and advertising is not a factor in what films are reviewed or how they are reviewed. Gray Decl. ~'Il4~5. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing "exists merely to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party's right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made." Gu: v. Bechtel Nat" Inc. (2000) 24 Ca1.4th 317,349-350. PlaintiffCahbra docs not allege that Defendant Variety failed to perform any of the actual terms ofthe agreement that they attached to their FAC. Plaintiff further argues that the parties were partners and that the review was a contlict of that partnership. A partnership is "an association of two or more persons to carryon as coowners of a business for profit formed under Section 16202 ... the association of two or more persons to carryon as coowners a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership." Corporations Code § 16202(a). There is no indication that other than the campaign term "exclusive media partner," the parties formed a partnership. The agreement was to print advertisements, there was nothing regarding sharing profits. See FAC, Exhibit A. Because Plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on their cause of action for breach of contract, Defendant's motion is granted as to this cause of action. Negligence The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach, causation and damages. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318. Plaintiff Calibra bases their negligence cause of action on the alleged breach of contract. F AC '~3 8-41. Plaintiff does not allege any individual facts outside the contract for this tort. Id. To recover on a cause of action for the tort of negligence, the acts giving rise to that tort must be independent of the contract or arise from conduct which is intentional and intended to cause harm, unless the breach is a violation of social policy, otherwise, the recovery is through contract law. Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Ca1.4th 543, 552. Here, Plaintiff Calibra has not alleged any intentional conduct in their cause of action separate from their cause of action for alleged breach of contract. Further, the review was not published until December 2009, two months after the alleged breach of duty, which Plaintiff has alleged to have existed. FAC 140. Plaintiff has not shown a probability that it will prevail 011 its negligence cause of action. The motion is granted as to this cause of action. Fraud and Deceit The elements of fraud are: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or "scienter"); (3) intent to I •.. n -. ~." v-, '" _ .. ..-.l. •.• - ........ "'~.- • ..,.~~ __ ~'~ _ .... ' •• ",c. -'~ defraud. i. e .. to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. Charnay \I. Cobert (2006) J 45 Cal.App.4th 170, 184. With regard to fraud claims, pleadings must allege facts as to "'how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. '" Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 59, 73. The requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak. to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157. Where a cause of action for fraud has been pleaded insufficiently, an anti-SLAPP motion is properly granted. Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) ]54 Cal.AppAth 347, 362-364. Here, Plaintiff alleges "Defendants made various representations to Plainti ff" that were made "by both the Variety'S editorial and advertising departments." F AC ~~43, 46. PlaintiffCalibra does not specifically allege any of the elements of the misrepresentations, knowledge of its alleged falsity, the intent to defraud, justifiable reliance or damages. The cause of action is inartfully pleaded and fails to stale a cause of action against Defendant Variety. Because an anti-SLAPP motion is properly granted upon failure to slate a cause of action for fraud, Defendant Variety's motion is granted as to this cause of action. Philipson & Simon, 154 Cal.App.4th at 362-364. Breach of Fiduciary Duty To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty and damages. Charnay, 145 Cal.App.4th at ] 82. Plaintiff Calibra alleges a fiduciary relationship based on Defendant Variety being the "exclusive media partner" and by entering into the contract 011 October 19,2009. FAC ~~14, 19. However, these only create contractual relationships. Plaintiff Calibra fails to allege any special relationship beyond that which would gi ve rise to a fiduciary one. Even if Plaintiff Calibra could allege a fiduciary relationship, it is based on the contract and Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant breached that contract. Since Plaintiff Calibra has not shown any probability of prevailing on this claim, Defendant's motion is granted. Unfair Business Practices "The Unfair Business Practices Act defines 'unfair competition' as any 'unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising .... ' (§ 17200.) The Legislature intended this 'sweeping language' to include 'anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law." Bank of the Westv. Slip. Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254,1266. Here, Plaintiff alleges "the acts and conduct alleged herein above constituted a fraudulent, unlawful and/or unfair business practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq." F AC ~55 (emphasis added). These allegations are conclusory ant! vague. An unfair business practice allegation must stale with particularity the facts supporting the statutory claims. Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619. "Without supporting facts demonstrating the illegality of a rule or regulation, an allegation that is in violation of a specific statute is purely conlusionary and insufficient to withstand demurrer." People v. McKaJe (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 635. Although this motion is not a demurrer, the reasoning applies, the ,. cause of action fai Is because Plaintiff Calibra has failed to comply with the pleading requirements. As with the fraud cause of action, when the VeL allegation fails to state a cause of action, an anti-SLAPP motion is properly granted. As Plaintiff Calibra has failed to state a cause of action or a probability that it would prevail on this claim, the motion is granted as to this cause of action. Attorneys' Fees: "rAJ prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs." c.c.P. § 425. 16(c), Defendant Variety is the prevailing party on this special motion to strike. As such, it is entitled to its attorneys' fees and costs in bringing this motion. Upon receipt of the appropriate declarations, attorneys' fees and costs will be granted. TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Variety's special motion to strike pursuant to C. CiP. § 425.16 is granted in its entirely. Upon receipt of the appropriate declarations from Defendant Variety, attorneys' fees and costs will be granted. See c.c.P. § 425. 16(c). Counsel for Defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling. t,-_' r-~ _-..w. __ -_._-I.r~~ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 if] -', -_" PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. My business address is 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90067-2506. 2. 3. I served copies of the following documents (specify the exact title of each document served): NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT VARIETY'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (C.c.P. §425.16) 4. I served the documents listed above in item 3 on the following persons at the addresses listed: 5. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Timothy D_ McGonigle, Esq. TIMOTHY D. MCGONIGLE PROF. CORP. 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, California 90401 a. 0 By personal service. I personally delivered the documents on the date shown below to the persons at the addresses listed above in item 4. (l) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening with some person not less than 18 years of age. Telephone: (310) 478-7110 Facsimile: (310) 260-9700 b. (gJ By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 4 and (specify one): (1) 0 deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid on the date shown below, or (2) I:8J placed the envelope for collection and mailing on the date shown below, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of bus mess with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. c. 0 By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents on the date shown below in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person at the addresses in item 4. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. - 3 - 'lA:738283vl Notice of Ruling 2 3 4 I served the documents by the means described in item 5 on April 13,2010. 5 d. 0 By messenger service. I served the documents on the date shown below by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the person on the addresses listed in item 4 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this proof of service or be . contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.) e. 0 By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents on the date shown below to the fax numbers of the persons listed in item 4. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the fax transmission, which 1 printed out, is attached f. 0 Bye-mail or electronic transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent on the date shown below to the e-mail addresses of the persons listed in item 4. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful 6 7 8 9 10 6. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ~i®Wli~ 12 4/]3/10 Joy Ingoglia DATE (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (si- 4CRAN'r) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- LA:738283vl Notice of Ruling "Li:tri II "g--- _L.:~ __ A....""" .-::Loo More From This UserCornett v GawkerFraley v FacebookAckerman v Zynga Ruling on DemurrerAckerman v Zynga complaintNewtechbio v Septicleanse ComplaintApple v Superior Court re KrescentApple v Superior Court re Krescent182621095_v_1_07.23.12 [#69-1] Corrected Exhibit a to Pltfs Mtn for Leave to FAC182603984_v_1!7!09-12 PURSEBLOG (#48) Ntc and Motion to Strike182572673_v_1!6!12-12 (#42) Minute Order and Court RulingLegend Morphy v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC ComplaintSterk v Best BuyAcademy v GoDaddy Denial of Discovery Against GoogleReal View v. 20-20 July 11 2012 Order Re Daubert MotionBollea (Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, LLC Shah v MyLife Magistrate ReportTiffany v 925JewelryMaxRicchio v. Amazon.com Inc.Knowles v eBay ComplaintKelley v Amazon ComplaintReinsdorf v Skechers Us ADawkins v. Yahoo Inc DismissalPlimmer v Google Inc. ComplaintAllure Jewelers v. UluScooter Store v SpinLife.Com Reconsideration
Calibra v Variety BC433320 Notice of Ruling by Eric Goldman922 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionVariety wins anti-SLAPP ruling against advertiser upset that Variety published a negative review about the advertiser's movie "Iron Cross"Variety wins anti-SLAPP ruling against advertiser upset that Variety published a negative review about the advertiser's movie "Iron Cross"Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedSample Notice of Ruling for Californiaby Stan BurmanSample Request for Trial de Novo in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.20by Stan BurmanSample Notice of Non-Appearance at Hearing for Californiaby Stan BurmanLegal research tips for Californiaby Stan BurmanSample Notice of Intention to Introduce oral testimony for Californiaby Stan BurmanTips for opposing a motion in Californiaby Stan BurmanSample California reply to opposition to motionby Stan BurmanSample Meet and Confer Letter for Californiaby Stan BurmanSimilar to Calibra v Variety BC433320 Notice of RulingSample Notice of Ruling for CaliforniaSample Request for Trial de Novo in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.20Sample Notice of Non-Appearance at Hearing for CaliforniaLegal research tips for CaliforniaSample Notice of Intention to Introduce oral testimony for CaliforniaTips for opposing a motion in CaliforniaSample California reply to opposition to motionSample Meet and Confer Letter for CaliforniaFREE Legal Research Links for California and Federal law Sample Request for Judicial Notice for California