Court Opinion

ID: 9891822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:03:54.581789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:40.477994
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/19/23 Biztracker Systems of St. John v. Lavco Solutions CA2/1
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION ONE

 BIZTRACKER SYSTEMS OF ST.                                         B317109
 JOHN, LLC,
                                                                   (Los Angeles County
           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                 Super. Ct. No. 20STCV02305)

           v.

 LAVCO SOLUTIONS, INC.

           Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Michael P. Linfield, Judge. Reversed.
     SLC Law Group and Louis F. Teran for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
     The Internet Law Group, Kavon Adli, Richard DeLiberty
and David Newman for Defendant and Respondent.
                                    ____________________
                        INTRODUCTION
       Appellant Biztracker Systems of St. John, LLC (Biztracker)
and respondent Lavco Solutions, Inc. (Lavco) both sell products
on Amazon.com (Amazon). In 2019, Lavco complained to Amazon
that several of Biztracker’s listings were for counterfeit products.
Amazon removed the listings and later suspended Biztracker’s
rights to sell any products on Amazon. Amazon lifted the
suspension about six weeks later after Lavco withdrew its
complaints. Biztracker then sued Lavco in superior court,
alleging Lavco made false allegations that caused Amazon to
suspend Biztracker’s account to unfairly compete with
Biztracker, and that those false allegations caused Biztracker to
lose sales and otherwise suffer damages.
       After Biztracker sued, Lavco filed a federal court lawsuit
alleging that Biztracker improperly “piggybacked” on Amazon
listings for products bearing Lavco’s trademark, “Epsilont.” After
filing its federal lawsuit, Lavco moved for summary judgment in
Biztracker’s superior court lawsuit on the ground, among others,
that its complaints to Amazon were protected by the litigation
privilege codified in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). That
privilege protects prelitigation communication when (among
other things) litigation related to such communication is under
serious consideration at the time of the communication. The trial
court granted the motion, concluding that Biztracker’s causes of
action all failed because Lavco’s communications to Amazon were
protected by the privilege.
       Biztracker appeals, arguing triable issues of fact exist
regarding application of the litigation privilege. Whether related
litigation is under serious consideration at the time of a
communication is a factual issue. Because disputed issues of fact

                                 2
exist concerning whether Lavco was seriously considering suing
Biztracker on claims related to Lavco’s correspondence with
Amazon at the time of that correspondence, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.     Amazon Suspends Biztracker’s Account and
       Biztracker Sues Its Competitor Lavco
       Biztracker and Lavco both utilize Amazon’s website to sell
point-of-sale (POS) products, which are devices that allow
businesses to collect payments from customers. Biztracker and
Lavco sold several products on Amazon using the same Amazon
Standard Identification Number (ASIN). The ASIN is a 10-
character alphanumeric identifier assigned by Amazon to a
specific product or bundle of products. A seller can use an ASIN
created by another seller if they sell the same product or bundle
of products.
       In August 2019, Lavco complained to Amazon that six of
Biztracker’s product listings were trademark infringing or
counterfeit, and Amazon removed the six listings. On October 12,
2019, Amazon sent an e-mail to Biztracker indicating that it had
suspended Biztracker’s account. The notice indicated the
suspension related to four of the listings that had been removed
in August 2019, which had the following ASINs: B077ZZJHF8,
B07C4KCHXF, B0772XG2Q5, and B074N8PQ8R. On
November 19, 2019, Lavco retracted its complaints regarding
those four listings, and three days later Amazon reinstated
Biztracker’s account.
       On January 17, 2020, Biztracker sued Lavco in superior
court claiming that Lavco made false representations to Amazon
to get Amazon to suspend Biztracker’s account. Biztracker

                               3
alleged that, “in or around August 2019,” Lavco had falsely
“represented to Amazon in writing that [Biztracker] was selling
products that were counterfeits, not authentic, infringing
someone else’s intellectual property, or illegal,” and Amazon
suspended Biztracker’s account based on those false
representations. Biztracker alleged it lost sales revenue due to
the suspension. Biztracker asserted three causes of action:
intentional interference with contractual relations; trade libel;
and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices in
violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code,
§ 17200 et seq.).
B.     Lavco Sues Biztracker in Federal Court
       On April 9, 2020, Lavco sued Biztracker in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
(Lavco Solutions v. Biztracker, case No. 2:20-cv-03286.) Lavco’s
first amended complaint asserted causes of action for trademark
infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising,
common law unfair competition and trademark infringement,
and unfair business practices under the UCL. Lavco alleged that
it owned the trademark “Epsilont,”1 and sold cash drawers and
receipt paper branded with the Epsilont mark. It further alleged,
“Almost as soon as Lavco began selling its POS products on
Amazon in 2016, Biztracker began improperly ‘piggybacking’ on

     1 Lavco, which is a corporation, acknowledged that the
trademark registration for “Epsilont” identified the mark’s owner
as a California LLC. Lavco alleged that it was “preparing papers
to file with the Trademark Office to correct the registration so
that it correctly refers to Lavco Solutions as a California
corporation.”

                                4
E[psilont] listings. For example, when Lavco listed an E[psilont]-
branded cash drawer or E[psilont]-branded printer paper as part
of an E[psilont] bundle, Biztracker would add itself to the listing
as offering the same products. But a customer who purchased
from Biztracker through the listing would receive a counterfeit
bundle with a generic cash drawer or with receipt paper that was
generic or differently branded, rather than the E[psilont] bundle
with the E[psilont]-branded cash drawer or receipt paper offered
by Lavco.”2
C.    Lavco’s Motion for Summary Judgment
      On August 31, 2021, Lavco filed a motion for summary
judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in
Biztracker’s superior court lawsuit. Lavco contended that all
three of Biztracker’s causes of action failed because Lavco’s
communications to Amazon about Biztracker’s product listings
were protected by the litigation privilege and the Noerr-

      2 Biztracker asserts in its opening brief that Lavco’s federal
lawsuit was dismissed “for lack of evidence that [Biztracker] ever
actually used the E[psilont] mark,” and attaches a copy of the
district court’s summary judgment order to its brief. We do not
consider this document or Biztracker’s assertion, as neither was
presented to the trial court. “It is well settled that in reviewing a
summary judgment, ‘ “. . . the appellate court must consider only
those facts before the trial court, disregarding any new
allegations on appeal. [Citation.]” ’ ” (Havstad v. Fidelity
National Title Ins. Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 654, 661.) We
likewise do not consider the district court’s ruling on Biztracker’s
motion for attorney’s fees, which Lavco references in its briefing.

                                  5
Pennington3 doctrine. Lavco’s requests for summary adjudication
were based on additional, independent grounds not relevant to
this appeal.4
      Lavco, through the declaration of its chief executive officer
Armen Vartanian and attached exhibits, adduced evidence that it
had complained to Amazon about Biztracker listings on several
occasions between 2016 and 2018.5 However, Amazon’s 2019
suspension notice did not reference any of the listings at issue in
these complaints. The majority of these complaints concerned
listings for products branded with the Epsilont mark, such as a
cash register drawer or receipt paper.
       As to its complaints to Amazon regarding the four listings
referenced in the suspension notice, Lavco presented direct
evidence of only one complaint. Specifically, on May 9, 2019,
Lavco sent an e-mail to Amazon complaining about Biztracker’s
listing under ASIN B077ZZJHF8. The e-mail stated, “This seller
is not an authorized Epsilont reseller and is selling counterfeit
items. Have this seller suspended immediately from this

      3 The doctrine is named for two cases, United Mine Workers
v. Pennington (1965) 381 U.S. 657, 670 [85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d
626] and Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor
Freight, Inc. (1961) 365 U.S. 127 [81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464].
      4 In their appellate briefs, the parties focus exclusively on
whether the litigation privilege bars Biztracker’s causes of action.
Neither party mentions the Noerr-Pennington doctrine or the
grounds on which summary adjudication was sought.
Accordingly, we focus solely on the litigation privilege issue.
      5 Vartanian’s declaration indicated the date of one
complaint was August 8, 2019, but the exhibits showed the
correct date was August 8, 2018.

                                 6
listing.”6 Amazon removed the listing in August 2019, but it is
unclear from the record whether this resulted from the May 9,
2019 e-mail or for some other reason.
       Lavco also adduced three other pieces of evidence that it
had complained to Amazon about the four listings implicated in
the suspension (ASINs B07C4KCHXF, B0772XG2Q5,
B074N8PQ8R, and B077ZZJHF8). First, a report in Biztracker’s
Amazon account, authenticated by Biztracker’s representative
Kristopher Youngs, showed that Amazon had removed the four
listings in August 2019 in response to complaints. Although the
report does not identify who made the complaints, Lavco concedes
it was the source.7
       Second, on October 16, 2019, an attorney representing
Biztracker, Mario Simonyan, wrote to Lavco stating that Lavco
“[had] submitted several complaints to Amazon alleging that our
[c]lient’s products listed under ASINs B077ZZJHF8,
B07C4KCHXF, B0772XG2Q5, and B074N8PQ8R are counterfeit
and infringing on your trademark rights under Trademark
Registration No. 5185607 (EPSILONT).” Simonyan
characterized the complaints as “frivolous,” asserting that
Biztracker’s products were authentic and that Lavco’s trademark
registration “does not cover the goods sold under the ASINs at
issue.” He further asserted, “the product pictures used for these

     6 The title of the listing was “Square Register Kitchen
Receipt Printer,” and thus did not include an item branded with
the Epsilont mark.
     7 The report also shows that two other Biztracker listings
were removed; these listings were not referenced in the
suspension notice.

                                7
ASINs bear the marks of Star Micronics and Epson - not
Epsilont.”
       Third, on November 19, 2019, Vartanian sent an e-mail to
Amazon retracting complaints by Lavco which related to the four
listings referenced in the suspension notice (there were three
complaints, two relating to a single ASIN listing each, and the
third relating to two ASIN listings). Vartanian averred that, in
response to Simonyan’s letter, Lavco offered to retract its
complaints because it “wished to avoid any potential legal issues
arising out of its complaints to Amazon and did not want to [sic]
anything to adversely affect its relationship with Epson and Star
Micronics.” According to Vartanian, Lavco’s offer was
conditioned on Biztracker agreeing “not to advertise its products
on the ASIN listings at issue,” and an e-mail from Lavco to
Simonyan stated that Simonyan had “mentioned that
[Biztracker] would like to resolve the dispute by having [Lavco]
agree to retract the complaints [it] filed with Amazon and in
exchange [Biztracker] would agree to not list on [Lavco’s] Amazon
listings.” However, no evidence was presented as to whether
Biztracker ultimately agreed to this in exchange for Lavco’s
retraction.
       Lavco’s motion argued that “[its] communications with
Amazon regarding Biztracker’s alleged infringement of the
E[psilont] mark” were connected with its federal lawsuit, which
was filed on April 9, 2020. In support of this contention, it
submitted copies of its first amended complaint in the federal
lawsuit and the district court’s order denying Biztracker’s motion
to dismiss the first amended complaint.

                                8
D.     Biztracker’s Opposition to the Motion for Summary
       Judgment
       In its summary judgment opposition, Biztracker contended
that “[t]he four (4) receipt printers at issue in this action are not
related to [Lavco] or the E[psilont] trademark,” not infringing of
any Lavco trademark, and thus unrelated to the later filed
federal lawsuit. Biztracker pointed out that, as shown on
Amazon’s suspension notice, none of the four ASIN listings
included the Epsilont mark. Biztracker argued that “nowhere in
its [m]otion, supporting declarations, or supporting evidence,
does [Lavco] provide anything to suggest that the four (4) ASINs
for which [Biztracker’s] account was suspended are associated
with [Lavco] or the E[psilont] mark.”
       Biztracker also contended that, except for the May 9, 2019
complaint, Lavco’s motion failed to present the complaints it
made to Amazon about the ASINs referenced in the suspension
notice. Thus, argued Biztracker, the court could not determine
whether the communications were protected by the litigation
privilege.
       Biztracker alternatively argued that if Lavco’s
communications to Amazon about the four ASINs referenced in
the suspension notice were related to the Epsilont mark, then the
representations were not protected by the litigation privilege
because they were a “sham” given that the product listings did
not mention the Epsilont mark. Biztracker further argued that
Lavco did not have standing to allege that Biztracker infringed
the Epsilont mark because Lavco did not own the federally
registered Epsilont mark, and that in any event the registered
mark applied to unrelated items and did not cover the POS
products at issue.

                                  9
       Finally, Biztracker argued that Lavco had “hindered” its
ability to conduct discovery. However, Biztracker did not identify
any facts it claimed were essential for it to oppose the motion, as
required by Code of Civil Procedure8 section 437c, subdivision (h),
nor did it request that the court deny or continue the motion
based on the alleged discovery misconduct.9
E.     Lavco’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary
       Judgment
       In its reply brief, Lavco highlighted that the suspension
notice did not indicate that Biztracker’s suspension was related
to Lavco’s complaints. Lavco also pointed out that Biztracker
attorney Simonyan’s letter characterized the complaints as being
connected to the Epsilont mark. Lavco responded to Biztracker’s
arguments that Lavco had failed to show it owned the federally
registered trademark for Epsilont by contending it had an
interest in an unregistered mark.
       Responding to Biztracker’s claim that Lavco had “hindered”
its ability to obtain discovery, Lavco pointed out that Biztracker
did not request a continuance of the summary judgment hearing
in accordance with section 437c, subdivision (h), and had not
presented facts supporting a continuance.

      8 Unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure.
      9 Biztracker included in the record several motions it filed
to compel discovery from Lavco, including one that the court
heard and denied on the same day as the motion for summary
judgment. Biztracker does not contend that the trial court erred
in its rulings on these motions, and thus we do not discuss them.

                                10
F.     The Trial Court’s Ruling
       The trial court granted Lavco’s motion for summary
judgment on October 22, 2021. The trial court concluded that the
litigation privilege applied to the communications at issue and
thus barred Biztracker’s claims. The court’s ruling stated, “The
only material issue here is whether [Lavco], in defense of the
E[psilont] trademark, communicated with Amazon about possible
violations of this trademark by [Biztracker]. It is not material
whether [Biztracker]’s Amazon account was suspended
specifically in reference to the four ASINs reported to Amazon by
[Lavco]. The [s]uspension [n]otice that [Biztracker] produced did
not cite [Lavco] anywhere in the document.” Concerning the
letter written by Biztracker’s former counsel, Simonyan, the
court found that, “In reference to the specific ASINs cited by
Amazon in their [s]uspension [n]otice to [Biztracker],
[Biztracker]’s former attorney identified [Lavco]’s actions as
related to trademark defense.” The court concluded “[Lavco]’s
complaints to Amazon present communications made in quasi-
judicial proceedings by a litigant to achieve the object of litigation
that has logical relation to the action.”10

      10 The appellate record includes pleadings related to a
motion for reconsideration Biztracker filed regarding the trial
court’s summary judgment ruling. The court denied the motion,
and Biztracker does not contend before us that the court erred in
doing so. Nor does Biztracker explain how the motion for
reconsideration and related evidence are relevant to the issues on
appeal. Accordingly, we do not consider the motion or the
associated evidence.

                                 11
     The trial court entered judgment in favor of Lavco on
December 10, 2021. Biztracker filed a timely notice of appeal on
December 13, 2021.
                          DISCUSSION
A.       Standard of Review
         “ ‘Because this case comes before us after the trial court
granted a motion for summary judgment, we take the facts from
the record that was before the trial court when it ruled on that
motion. [Citation.] “ ‘We review the trial court’s decision de
novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and
opposing papers except that to which objections were made and
sustained.’ ” [Citation.] We liberally construe the evidence in
support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve
doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. [Citation.]’
[Citation.]” (Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (2008) 43 Cal.4th
201, 206.)
         A defendant who moves for summary judgment “bears the
burden of persuasion that ‘one or more elements of’ the ‘cause of
action’ in question ‘cannot be established,’ or that ‘there is a
complete defense’ thereto. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic
Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; see § 437c, subd. (o).)
Such a defendant also “bears the initial burden of production to
make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of material fact
exists. Once the initial burden of production is met, the burden
shifts to the [plaintiff] to demonstrate the existence of a triable
issue of material fact.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163
Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.) A triable issue of material fact exists
“ ‘ “if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of
fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the
motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”

                                 12
[Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Janney v. CSAA Ins. Exchange (2021)
70 Cal.App.5th 374, 389-390.)
       Lavco “has ‘the burden of establishing the preliminary
facts’ to support its ‘affirmative defense of the litigation privilege.’
[Citations.]” (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18
Cal.App.5th 908, 947; see also Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 469 [defendant relying on affirmative
defense in moving for summary judgment has “an initial burden
of production to make a prima facie showing” that defense
applies].)
       Finally, “[w]e . . . are not bound by the reasons in [the trial
court’s] summary judgment ruling; we review the ruling of the
trial court, not its rationale.” (Joshi v. Fitness International, LLC
(2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 814, 824.)
B.    The Litigation Privilege
      “The litigation privilege, codified at Civil Code section 47,
subdivision (b), provides [in relevant part] that a ‘publication or
broadcast’ made as part of a ‘judicial proceeding’ is privileged. . . .
[Citation.] ‘The usual formulation is that the privilege applies to
any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings;[11] (2) by litigants or other participants authorized

      11 The trial court’s summary judgment ruling referred to
Lavco’s communications with Amazon as “communications made
in quasi-judicial proceedings.” The term “quasi-judicial” refers to
the protection afforded to communications made in an “ ‘official
proceeding authorized by law.’ ” (Ascherman v. Natanson (1972)
23 Cal.App.3d 861, 865.) Neither party took the position in the
trial court that Amazon’s dispute resolution process could be
deemed an “official proceeding authorized by law” under Civil

                                  13
by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that
[has] some connection or logical relation to the action.’
[Citation.]” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica
(2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 (Action Apartment).) “ ‘The
principal purpose of [the litigation privilege] is to afford litigants
and witnesses [citation] the utmost freedom of access to the
courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative
tort actions. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] In order to achieve this
purpose of curtailing derivative lawsuits, we have given the
litigation privilege a broad interpretation.” (Ibid.)
       “A prelitigation communication is privileged only when it
relates to litigation that is contemplated in good faith and under
serious consideration. [Citations.] [¶] The policy supporting the
litigation privilege is furthered only if litigation is seriously
considered: ‘It is important to distinguish between the lack of a
good faith intention to bring a suit and publications which are
made without a good faith belief in their truth, i.e., malicious
publications. The latter, when made in good faith anticipation of
litigation, are protected as part of the price paid for affording
litigants the utmost freedom of access to the courts. This policy
consideration is not advanced, however, when the person

Code section 47, subdivision (b)(3), nor does either party take
that position on appeal. To the extent the trial court so
concluded, it was mistaken. The Amazon complaint process,
administered by a business corporation, cannot qualify as an
official proceeding authorized by law because the process is
neither “official” nor “authorized by law.” (See, e.g., Slaughter v.
Friedman (1982) 32 Cal.3d 149, 156 [concluding a professional
association’s disciplinary actions could not be deemed “official
proceedings” under Civ. Code, § 47].)

                                 14
publishing an injurious falsehood is not seriously considering
litigation. In such a case, the publication has no “connection or
logical relation” to an action and is not made “to achieve the
objects” of any litigation [citation]. No public policy supports
extending a privilege to persons who attempt to profit from
hollow threats of litigation.’ [Citations.]” (Action Apartment,
supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1251.) “Whether a prelitigation
communication relates to litigation that is contemplated in good
faith and under serious consideration is an issue of fact.”12
(Ibid.)
       To be protected by the litigation privilege, a prelitigation
communication must be made “ ‘to achieve the objects of the
litigation’ ” and have “ ‘some connection or logical relation to the
action.’ ” (Action Apartment, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1241,
quoting Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 212.) As our
Supreme Court explained in Silberg, “The requirement that the
communication be in furtherance of the objects of the litigation is,
in essence, simply part of the requirement that the
communication be connected with, or have some logical relation
to, the action, i.e., that it not be extraneous to the action. A good
example of an application of the principle is found in the cases

      12 Biztracker relies on Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp.
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, which held that the litigation privilege
could protect prelitigation communications only if a lawsuit was
“actually . . . suggested or proposed, orally or in writing” and “the
contemplated litigation [was] imminent.” (Id. at pp. 34, 35.) We
apply the test articulated by the Supreme Court in Action
Apartment, and in any event our analysis does not turn on
whether Lavco’s communications suggested or proposed litigation
or whether Lavco contemplated “imminent” litigation.

                                 15
holding that a statement made in a judicial proceeding is not
privileged unless it has some reasonable relevancy to the subject
matter of the action. [Citations.]” (Silberg, supra, at pp. 219-
220.) “[T]he ‘connection or logical relation’ which a
communication must bear to litigation in order for the privilege
to apply, is a functional connection. That is to say, the
communicative act—be it a document filed with the court, a letter
between counsel or an oral statement—must function as a
necessary or useful step in the litigation process and must serve
its purposes. This is a very different thing from saying that the
communication’s content need only be related in some way to the
subject matter of the litigation.” (Rothman v. Jackson (1996) 49
Cal.App.4th 1134, 1146.)13
       Ensuring that a communication is relevant to the subject
litigation is especially important when the communication is
made prior to the filing of litigation. (Nguyen v. Proton
Technology Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 140, 150-151 [concluding
that the litigation privilege did not protect a reference in a
prelitigation demand letter to the plaintiff’s criminal record,
because any connection between the plaintiff’s criminal history

      13 Attempting to extend the scope of communications
potentially covered by the privilege, Lavco cites Rubin v. Green
(1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, where our Supreme Court stated “that
communications with ‘some relation’ to an anticipated lawsuit are
. . . within the [litigation] privilege.” (Id. at p. 1194, italics
omitted.) In Rubin, the court did not address the degree of
connection required as the communications at issue expressly
concerned a proposed lawsuit. (Id. at p. 1195.) Nor did it intend
to alter the test it had articulated three years earlier in Silberg
regarding the degree of required connection, as it later reaffirmed
the Silberg formulation in Action Apartment.

                                16
and the issues in the threatened litigation was tenuous].) As one
Court of Appeal noted in an early case applying the privilege to a
prelitigation communication, “the fact that a suit eventually is
filed does not protect all defamatory communications made prior
to the filing. But most potential abuse of this privilege for
prelitigation communications can be prevented by enforcement of
the relevancy requirement.” (Lerette v. Dean Witter
Organization, Inc. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 573, 578, fn. 6.)
C.     Triable Issues of Fact Exist Regarding the Potential
       Application of the Litigation Privilege
       While the parties present numerous arguments, we need
discuss only one as we find it dispositive. We conclude that the
trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there
are disputed issues of fact as to whether Lavco was seriously
considering related litigation when it complained to Amazon.
      1.    Whether Lavco Was Seriously Considering Litigation
            at the Time of the Amazon Complaints14
       Lavco’s evidence that it was contemplating litigation at the
time it communicated with Amazon consists solely of the fact it
later filed the federal lawsuit. One can draw the inference from
the filing of that lawsuit approximately eight months after the

      14 Biztracker did not directly present this aspect of the
litigation privilege test to the trial court, but Lavco does not
claim waiver or forfeiture. We exercise our discretion to consider
this issue as Lavco bore the burden below to establish it, both
parties have fully briefed the issue, our review is de novo, and the
issue involved is a question of law that we may properly consider
for the first time on appeal. (E.g., Greenlake Capital, LLC v.
Bingo Investments, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 731, 739, fn. 6.)

                                17
fact that Lavco was seriously considering litigation when it
complained to Amazon. But one can also reasonably draw
contrary conclusions from the evidence—that Lavco did not
seriously consider litigation when it complained to Amazon, and
that it was not until Biztracker itself sued that Lavco thought to
pursue litigation.
       There is no evidence that Lavco consulted with an attorney
prior to submitting its complaints to Amazon. Vartanian, Lavco’s
CEO, did not aver that Lavco intended to sue Biztracker at the
time Lavco complained to Amazon. When contacted by
Biztracker’s attorney after Amazon suspended Biztracker’s
account, Lavco offered to retract its complaints because,
according to Vartanian, it “wished to avoid any potential legal
issues arising out of its complaints.” Lavco then did in fact
retract its complaints. Lavco ultimately sued Biztracker, but
only after retracting its complaints to Amazon and after
Biztracker had filed its state-court lawsuit.
       One can fairly infer from these facts that Lavco was not
seriously considering litigation at the time it made the
complaints to Amazon at issue, such that a triable issue of fact
exists concerning application of the litigation privilege. (E.g.,
Action Apartment, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1251 [whether
litigation was under serious consideration at the time of a given
communication “is an issue of fact”]; Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis
Club, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 948 [error to summarily
adjudicate the plaintiff’s defamation claim as barred by the
litigation privilege because there was a triable issue whether the
defendant contemplated litigation when it made the allegedly
defamatory statements]; Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc.
(1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1381 [error to grant summary

                               18
judgment based on the litigation privilege because “[i]t
remain[ed] a triable issue of fact whether . . . imminent litigation
was seriously proposed and actually contemplated in good faith
as a means of resolving the dispute between [the parties]”]; Laffer
v. Levinson, Miller, Jacobs & Phillips (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 117,
124-125 [reversing summary judgment ruling premised on the
litigation privilege because there were triable issues whether the
party asserting the privilege had in good faith seriously
contemplated future litigation].)
      2.    Whether Lavco’s Communications with Amazon
            Sufficiently Related to any Contemplated Litigation
       There is also a material factual dispute regarding whether
the communications to Amazon are sufficiently related to the
litigation Lavco purportedly contemplated (which, as stated
above, it identified as the federal complaint it eventually filed).
The Lavco complaints to Amazon that resulted in Biztracker’s
suspension and that are at issue in the superior court lawsuit all
involved listings that did not include any product branded with
the Epsilont mark. In contrast, all of Lavco’s causes of action in
the federal lawsuit were premised on allegations that Biztracker
sold products under Amazon listings that included a product
branded with the Epsilont mark. While Lavco’s first amended
federal complaint did not purport to provide a complete list of the
products at issue in that lawsuit, and used phrases such as
“[a]mong other products” and “[f]or example,” there is no evidence
that the lawsuit addressed listings that did not include a product
branded with the Epsilont mark or did not include “Epsilont” in
the title.
       Lavco makes no effort to compare the allegations in its
federal lawsuit with the complaints it made about the four

                                19
listings identified in the suspension notice. Lavco instead relies
on the letter written by Biztracker’s former attorney, Simonyan,
in which it claims Simonyan acknowledged that Lavco
complained about the four listings to protect its interest in the
Epsilont mark. The trial court also relied on this letter. Lavco
essentially posits the following syllogism: it sought to protect its
Epsilont trademark in its complaints to Amazon, and it also
sought to protect its trademark in the federal lawsuit, and
therefore its complaints to Amazon related to the federal lawsuit.
Perhaps. But one can also reach the opposite conclusion because
the trademark claims Lavco asserted in its complaints to Amazon
were not the same as the claims it asserted in its federal lawsuit,
either in terms of the products at issue or the theory of liability.
       While Biztracker attorney Simonyan stated that Lavco was
complaining Biztracker’s products were “counterfeit and
infringing on [Lavco’s] trademark rights,” he disputed Lavco’s
assertion of trademark rights because, in part, “the product
pictures used for these ASINs bear the marks of Star Micronics
and Epson - not Epsilont.” Thus, according to Simonyan’s letter,
Lavco was not complaining about Biztracker selling products
bearing the Epsilont mark. Furthermore, evidence shows that
(1) the listings at issue in Simonyan’s letter (based on the
suspension notice) did not include “Epsilont” in the title,
(2) whereas the products at issue in Lavco’s federal lawsuit did
bear the Epsilont mark, and (3) Lavco’s federal litigative theory
was that Biztracker was infringing the Epsilont mark.
       To establish the relatedness of its later lawsuit, Lavco
relies on Biztracker’s agreement to Lavco’s undisputed material
fact No. 39, which stated: “On April 9, 2020, Lavco filed a federal
lawsuit against Biztracker in the Central District of California,

                                20
entitled Lavco Solutions vs. Biztracker, Case No. 2:20-cv-03286,
which is based on the complaints that Lavco made to Amazon in
August 2019 regarding Biztracker’s alleged violations of its
intellectual property rights in the EPSILONT mark.” But
Biztracker’s failure to dispute this statement does not equate to a
concession that Lavco’s complaints regarding the four listings at
issue in the suspension notice were related to Lavco’s federal
lawsuit. To begin with, Lavco complained to Amazon about six
ASINs: four of which led to the suspension from Amazon, and two
of which did not. Thus, while the federal lawsuit was based on
complaints Lavco made to Amazon in August 2019, that does not
mean the federal lawsuit was based on each and every one of
those complaints—one could instead draw the fair inference that
the federal lawsuit related to the two complaints that did not lead
to the suspension (and which thus do not form the basis for the
superior court lawsuit). That inference is bolstered by
Biztracker’s consistent argument in the superior court case that
Lavco’s complaints about the four listings referenced in the
suspension notice were not based on a claim that Biztracker
infringed on the Epsilont mark.
       Lavco also relies on evidence of a complaint it asserts it
made to Amazon on August 8, 2019; however, the exhibit
concerning this complaint shows that Lavco submitted it on
August 8, 2018—approximately 20 months before any litigation
was filed. More importantly, this complaint concerned the listing
under ASIN B01MTKIL5K, which is not one of the listings at
issue in the suspension notice. Lavco’s final contention, that
Biztracker “conceded in the opposition separate statement [that]
at least one complaint that Lavco made to Amazon was the basis
of Lavco’s lawsuit against Biztracker,” is unavailing for similar

                                21
reasons. There is no dispute that some of Lavco’s complaints to
Amazon about Biztracker’s listings related to the legal claims
Lavco later made in its federal lawsuit, but this does not
conclusively resolve whether the complaints related to the four
listings referenced in the suspension notice were in furtherance
of the federal lawsuit’s objectives.
       Under these circumstances, a material factual dispute
exists concerning whether Lavco’s complaints to Amazon were
made “ ‘to achieve the objects of the litigation’ ” or had a
“ ‘connection or logical relation to the action’ ” that Lavco later
filed. (Action Apartment, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1241.) The
requirement that the communication “ ‘achieve the objects of the
litigation’ . . . cannot be satisfied by communications which only
serve interests that happen to parallel or complement a party’s
interests in the litigation.” (Rothman v. Jackson, supra, 49
Cal.App.4th at p. 1147.)
       We lastly observe that TP Link USA Corporation v. Careful
Shopper LLC (C.D. Cal. 2020) 2020 WL 4353678, on which Lavco
relies, is inapposite. Putting aside that it has no precedential
value, TP Link is distinguishable. First, the defendant in TP
Link did not dispute whether the plaintiff had seriously
considered litigation at the time it complained to Amazon; the
defendant instead argued that the litigation privilege did not
apply because the plaintiff’s complaints themselves “lacked a
requisite ‘unequivocal expression of contemplated litigation,’ ”
which the defendant contended was required under California
law. (Id. at p. *4.) Our holding that there is a triable issue
whether Lavco seriously considered litigation is based on the
circumstances surrounding Lavco’s complaints to Amazon and its
offer to retract its complaints to avoid litigation, not the language

                                 22
of its complaints (nearly all of which Lavco did not include in its
summary judgment motion).15 Second, TP Link is
distinguishable because, unlike Lavco’s complaints to Amazon,
the plaintiff’s complaints to Amazon in TP Link involved the
same allegedly infringing product listings at issue in the filed
trademark infringement case such that the relatedness between
the complaints and the later lawsuit was unquestionable. (Id. at
pp. *1, *5.)

      15 The TP Link court stated, in a footnote, “where, as here,
the supposed language of the complaint has been provided,
application of the litigation privilege is a question of law, not
fact.” (TP Link USA Corporation v. Careful Shopper LLC, supra,
2020 WL 4353678 at p. *5, fn. 5.) We do not understand this to
mean that the question whether a party seriously considered
litigation at the time of the subject prelitigation communication
is an issue of law based on the language of the communication.
That would contradict well-established California law that holds
the issue is a question of fact. (E.g., Olivares v. Pineda (2019) 40
Cal.App.5th 343, 357-358; Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17
Cal.App.5th 655, 683-685.)

                                 23
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for
further proceedings. Biztracker is awarded costs on appeal.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                        WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P.J.

             CHANEY, J.

                              24