Opinion ID: 1425915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: california statutory and common law claims

Text: In addition to its federal copyright and trademark claims, Perfect 10 pled causes of action for unfair competition, false advertising, violation of the right of publicity, libel, and intentional interference with economic relations. We hold that the district court properly dismissed all these claims with prejudice. A. California State Law Claims of Unfair Competition hand False Advertising Defendants do not dispute Perfect 10's claims that the websites themselves are potentially violating California state and common law prohibiting unfair competition and false advertising. See Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17200, et seq., and 17500, et seq. Defendants do, however, argue that Emery v. Visa International Service Association, 95 Cal.App.4th 952, 116 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (2002), precludes liability for Defendants in this case, both under secondary liability and aiding and abetting theories. Defendants are correct on both counts. In Emery, a California appellate court affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Visa, finding that Visa did not exercise the requisite control over merchants marketing foreign lottery tickets to impose secondary liability under the state's unfair competition or false advertising laws. Id. at 959-964, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 25. Emery found that an unfair practices claim under section 17200 cannot be predicated on vicarious liability. . . . A defendant's liability must be based on his personal participation in the unlawful practices and unbridled control over the practices that are found to violate section 17200 or 17500. Id. at 960, 116 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (internal citations omitted). Because Visa itself played no part in preparing or sending any `statement' that might be construed as untrue or misleading under the unfair business practices statutes, it could not be liable for unfair competition. Id. at 964, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 25. The false advertising claim also necessarily failed because even if Visa allowed the merchants to use its logo, trade name, or trademark, it would not be liable for false advertising. There is no duty to investigate the truth of statements made by others. Id. (citations omitted). Emery is dispositive of Perfect 10's claims that the Defendants are secondarily liable under California unfair competition and false advertising laws and the district court properly dismissed them. [20] In an attempt to avoid the impact of Emery, Perfect 10 argues on appeal that it alleged aiding and abetting theories of liability in its complaints, and further, that the district court improperly dismissed these civil claims under a criminal standard of aiding and abetting. Perfect 10 fails to establish a viable claim on these theories as well. The only authority offered by Perfect 10 in support of such liability is an opinion which is now uncitable in California: Schulz v. Neovi Data Corporation, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 46 (Cal. App.4th Dist.2005), superceded by 32 Cal. Rptr.3d 758, 117 P.3d 475 (Cal.2005), cause transferred by 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 471, 154 P.3d 998 (Cal.2007), transferred to, 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 (4th Dist. Jun 15, 2007). Furthermore, even under the standards announced in the superceding Schulz opinion, Defendants would not be liable. The Schulz court found a credit card company potentially liable for its role in facilitating an illegal online lottery because that company went far beyond merely processing credit cards. 152 Cal.App.4th at 95, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 810. In support, the court cited specific statements from a company representative in which he personally assured an agent of the website that the defendant company did not have any problem with the operation of the [illegal] lottery site and had a stronger stomach than other payment processors. Id. Perfect 10 alleges no similar conduct here Defendants merely process credit card payments. B. Aiding and Abetting the Websites' Violations of Perfect 10's Right of Publicity Perfect 10 alleges that Defendants aided and abetted the websites' violations of Perfect 10's rights of publicity, acquired by assignment from its models, in violation of Cal. Civil Code § 3344 and the common law right of publicity. This aiding and abetting claim fails for the same reasons as the aiding and abetting claims under unfair competition and false advertising. Even if such liability is possible under California lawa proposition for which Perfect 10 has provided no clear authorityDefendants lack sufficient control or personal involvement in the infringing activities to be so liable. See Schulz, 152 Cal.App.4th at 93-94, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 810; Emery, 95 Cal.App.4th at 962-63, 116 Cal. Rptr.2d 25.
The district court dismissed Perfect 10's claims of libel and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage with prejudice on multiple grounds. We affirm on the ground that both are time-barred. Under California law, a libel claim must be filed within one year of publication of the allegedly libelous statement, Cal. Civ. Proc. § 340(c), and an intentional interference claim must be filed within two years of the underlying harmful act, Cal. Civ. Proc. § 339. Perfect 10 claims the same underlying wrongful act as the basis for both claims: its placement on the industry black list in the Spring of 2001. However, Perfect 10 failed to file suit until January 2004well beyond the statute of limitations applicable to each claimand has failed to show any possible exception under either statute. Those claims are time-barred.