E.D.C. Technologies, Inc. v. Seidel et al
Filing
69
ORDER denying 55 Motion to Strike ; denying 55 Motion to Dismiss. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/6/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
E.D.C. TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Case No. 16-cv-03316-SI
Plaintiff,
10
v.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JIM SEIDEL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION
TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 55
13
14
15
16
Now before the Court is plaintiff E.D.C. Technologies, Inc.’s special motion to strike and
17
dismiss defendant Jim Seidel’s fourth and fifth counterclaims and defendant Seidel Associates
18
LLC d/b/a GreenBox Energy’s first through third counterclaims. Dkt. No. 55. This motion is
19
scheduled to be heard on December 9, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
20
determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the
21
hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY plaintiff’s motion to strike and
22
DENY plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.
23
24
BACKGROUND
25
Plaintiff E.D.C. Technologies, Inc. (“EDC”) is the creator of an internet-based hot water
26
management system that allows customers to remotely monitor, configure, and actively manage
27
their hot water systems. See First Amend. Compl. (“FAC”) (Dkt. No. 33) ¶¶ 16, 18. Defendant
28
Jim Seidel is EDC’s former Vice President of Sales and Marketing. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5. Defendant Seidel
1
Associates, LLC d/b/a GreenBox Energy (“GreenBox”) is a competing business Seidel allegedly
2
created while employed by EDC. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 79. Defendant Jason Pavlos is EDC’s former lead
3
operations technician. Id. ¶¶ 6, 58.
4
EDC alleges that, while still employed with the company, Seidel and Pavlos developed
5
GreenBox using EDC’s technology and resources. Id. ¶ 85. EDC alleges that Seidel and Pavlos
6
met with EDC customers and used EDC products to demonstrate service features the two were
7
developing in competition with EDC. Id. EDC alleges that it fired both Seidel and Pavlos when
8
the company learned of these, and other, actions. Id. ¶¶ 82, 86.
In this lawsuit, EDC sues Seidel, Seidel Associates, GreenBox, and Pavlos, alleging
10
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
and the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, 2707 (Counts 1-2). EDC also brings
12
various California state law causes of action (Counts 3-10), including claims for intentional
13
interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic
14
advantage.
15
Seidel and GreenBox each assert counterclaims against EDC. See Dkt. Nos. 39, 40.
16
According to Seidel and GreenBox, Seidel voluntarily resigned from EDC and sought to “develop
17
a revolutionary new product[,]. . . . a completely different control and monitoring system from
18
EDC’s . . . .” GreenBox Countercl. (Dkt. No. 39) ¶ 7. Seidel maintains that he did not steal or use
19
any of EDC’s proprietary information and that GreenBox developed its unique product in
20
collaboration with a third-party.
21
contacted or pursued EDC customers; they allegedly only work with two former EDC customers,
22
and only because these customers contacted Seidel directly when EDC was unable to meet their
23
product requests. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.
Id. ¶¶ 8-10.
Seidel and GreenBox claim that they never
24
In July 2016, EDC management sent various emails to current and prospective EDC
25
customers, contractors, and developers, describing certain factual allegations in this lawsuit in an
26
apparent effort to prevent losing business. See id. ¶ 17; Decl. Wathen (Dkt. No. 55-1), Exs. A-D.
27
Seidel and GreenBox allege that EDC knowingly included false information in these emails —
28
such as the fact that Seidel was terminated (he claims to have resigned), that Seidel was an EDC
2
1
shareholder (he claims that he was not), and that Seidel stole EDC trade secrets and customers (he
2
claims that he did not); and they bring causes of action arising from the false communications.
3
GreenBox Countercl. ¶¶ 17-43; Seidel Countercl. ¶¶ 64-79. EDC makes the instant motion to
4
strike and dismiss the Seidel and GreenBox counterclaims that arise from the customer emails: (1)
5
Seidel’s fourth counterclaim for defamation; (2) Seidel’s fifth counterclaim for intentional
6
interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) GreenBox’s first counterclaim for
7
intentional interference with contractual relations; (4) GreenBox’s second counterclaim for
8
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and (5) GreenBox’s third
9
counterclaim for trade libel. See Mot. (Dkt. No. 55).
10
LEGAL STANDARD
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
I.
Anti-SLAPP (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16)
13
The California Legislature passed California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16 to
14
address “a disturbing increase” in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPPs”), or
15
suits brought “primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech
16
and petition for the redress of grievances.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(a). Section 425.16
17
permits defendants (or counterclaim defendants) to bring a “special motion to strike” if a cause of
18
action against them arises “from any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free
19
speech . . . in connection with a public issue[.]” Id. § 425.16(b)(1), (h). A special motion to strike
20
under section 425.16 is commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion.
21
In order to prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, the movant must first make a prima facie
22
showing, through the pleadings themselves and supporting affidavits, that the statement or conduct
23
underlying the legal claims against it qualifies for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute. Id.
24
§ 425.16(b); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003). The burden
25
then shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the challenged
26
claims. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1); Vess, 317 F.3d at 1110.
27
The California Legislature expressly intended that section 425.16 “be construed broadly”
28
in protection of the public interest. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(a). Although it is a state
3
1
statute, a party may bring an anti-SLAPP motion to strike state law claims in federal court. Vess,
2
317 F.3d at 1109 (citing United States ex. rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190
3
F.3d 963, 970-73 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that there is no direct conflict between the Federal Rules
4
and §§ 425.16(b) and (c), and that adopting California procedural rules serves the purposes of the
5
Erie doctrine)).
6
7
II.
Motion to Dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6))
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint
9
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
10
dismiss, plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires
12
plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
13
unlawfully.”
14
“heightened fact pleading of specifics,” plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to
15
relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. In deciding whether plaintiff
16
has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must assume that plaintiff’s
17
allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City
18
of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is not required to “accept
19
as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
20
inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). The court, for
21
example, need not accept as true “allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial
22
notice or by exhibit.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
23
Furthermore, “a plaintiff may plead h[im]self out of court” if he “plead[s] facts which establish
24
that he cannot prevail on his . . . claim.” Weisbuch v. Cnty. of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir.
25
1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
While courts do not require
26
As a general rule, the court may not consider materials beyond the pleadings when ruling
27
on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).
28
However, the court may consider “documents attached to the complaint [and] documents
4
1
incorporated by reference in the complaint . . . without converting the motion to dismiss into a
2
motion for summary judgment.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). If
3
the court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The Ninth
4
Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to
5
amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured
6
by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations
7
and internal quotation marks omitted).
8
DISCUSSION
9
10
I.
Anti-SLAPP Motion
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
California’s anti-SLAPP statute establishes four categories of protected speech or conduct.
12
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e). The statute protects: (1) “any written or oral statement or
13
writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding”; (2) “any written or oral
14
statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a
15
legislative, executive, or judicial body”; (3) written or oral statements made “in a public forum in
16
connection with an issue of public interest”; and (4) any other conduct furthering a right of petition
17
or free speech in connection with a public issue. Id.
18
Here, EDC argues that its emails are protected speech under the second category as written
19
statements “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a . . . judicial
20
body.” Mot. (Dkt. No. 55) at 12, 15; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(2). The Court must first
21
determine whether EDC’s communications are entitled to protection under the anti-SLAPP statute.
22
If so, the Court must then determine whether Seidel and GreenBox have demonstrated a likelihood
23
of success on the merits of the counterclaims arising out of those protected communications.
24
25
A.
Protected Communications
26
First, EDC must demonstrate that the challenged statements were made “in connection
27
with” an issue under consideration by a judicial body. EDC argues that its emails to customers are
28
protected communications because they were made “in connection with issues under consideration
5
1
in this litigation.”1 Mot. (Dkt. No. 55) at 14-15.
Seidel and GreenBox do not disagree with this interpretation but counter that the emails
3
fall under the “commercial speech” exemption codified under California Civil Procedure Code
4
section 425.17 and are therefore not entitled to anti-SLAPP protection. Opp’n (Dkt. No. 60) at 5-
5
8. The California Legislature created certain exemptions from the protections afforded under the
6
anti-SLAPP statute because of a “disturbing abuse” of the statute “contrary to the [statute’s]
7
purpose and intent.”
8
“commercial speech.” Id. § 425.17(c).
9
applying to “disputes that are purely commercial[,]” such as suits arising from comparative
10
advertising. Taheri Law Grp. v. Evans, 160 Cal. App. 4th 482, 491 (2d Dist. 2008). “The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
commercial speech exemption . . . is a statutory exception to section 425.16 and should be
12
narrowly construed.” Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal. 4th 12, 22 (2010) (citations
13
and internal quotation marks omitted).
See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(a).
One such exemption is for
California courts have interpreted the exemption as
14
On its face, the “commercial speech” exemption states, in relevant part, that anti-SLAPP
15
protection “does not apply to any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in
16
the business of selling or leasing goods or services . . . arising from any statement or conduct by
17
that person” if two conditions exist. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(c). The first condition is
18
whether the statement or conduct “consists of representations of fact about [the defendant’s] or a
19
business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services,” “made for the purpose of obtaining
20
approval for, promoting, or securing sales or leases of . . . the [defendant’s] goods or
21
services . . . .” Id. § 425.17(c)(1). The second condition is whether “[t]he intended audience is an
22
actual or potential buyer or customer . . . .” Id. § 425.17(c)(2). Thus, for the commercial speech
23
exemption to apply, Seidel and GreenBox must demonstrate: (1) that EDC is “primarily engaged
24
in the business of selling or leasing goods or services”; (2) that the challenged claims arise “from a
25
1
26
27
28
“[A] statement is ‘in connection with’ litigation under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2)
if it relates to the substantive issues in the litigation and is directed to persons having some interest
in the litigation.” Neville v. Chudacoff, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1266 (2008); see also id. at 1270
(“[S]ection 425.16, subdivision (e)(2) . . . has been held to protect statements to persons who are
not parties or potential parties to litigation, provided such statements are made ‘in connection
with’ pending or anticipated litigation.” [citations]).
6
1
statement or conduct by [EDC] consisting of representations of fact about [EDC’s] or a business
2
competitor’s business operations, goods, or services”; (3) that EDC’s statement was made “for the
3
purpose of obtaining approval for, promoting, or securing sales or leases of” its goods or services;
4
and (4) that EDC’s intended audience was “an actual or potential buyer or customer[.]” See
5
Weiland Sliding Doors & Windows, Inc. v. Panda Windows & Doors, LLC, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1033,
6
1036-37 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Simpson, 49 Cal. 4th at 30).
EDC does not dispute that it is engaged in business or that its intended audience was,
8
among others, actual or potential customers. EDC argues, at least with respect to Seidel, that its
9
statements did not concern “a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.”
10
EDC also argues that the emails were not sent “for the purpose of obtaining approval for,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
promoting, or securing sales or leases of” its goods or services. The Court will address these
12
arguments in turn.
13
First, the Court is not persuaded by EDC’s distinction between GreenBox, the entity, and
14
Jim Seidel, the person, in terms of who is EDC’s “business competitor.” The commercial speech
15
exemption applies equally to representations of fact about either the defendant’s or “a business
16
competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.”
17
EDC’s email contained representations of fact about its own operations, goods, or services, as well
18
as GreenBox’s. Regardless, under these circumstances, common sense dictates that Seidel and
19
GreenBox are both EDC competitors — Seidel created GreenBox, an EDC competitor, and
20
manages its day-to-day operations. See Seidel Countercl. (Dkt. No. 40) ¶ 25. This is a dispute
21
between competing businesses. That one defendant, Seidel, is not a business entity, does not
22
detract from the commercial nature of this dispute. The Court finds that for purposes of the
23
commercial speech exemption, EDC’s communication contained representations of fact about
24
both EDC’s and “a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.”
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(c)(1).
25
Second, the Court finds that EDC’s email was sent “for the purpose of obtaining approval
26
for, promoting, or securing sales or leases of” its goods or services. For example, in Weiland, the
27
plaintiff moved to strike counterclaims arising from a press release and oral statements related to
28
its patent infringement suit against the defendant. 814 F. Supp. 2d at 1037-39. The plaintiff’s
7
1
press release was broadly disseminated to customers, vendors, and trade publications, and
2
included discussion of the litigation, the plaintiff’s innovative products, and a comparison of the
3
plaintiff’s and the defendant’s products. Id. at 1037. The release and related oral statements also
4
indicated that dealers who sold the defendant’s products could be subject to liability. Id. While
5
the statement directly discussed the parties’ litigation, the court found that the plaintiff’s
6
statements were made “for the purpose of securing sales.” Id. at 1038-39.
Here, while EDC’s emails were more carefully drafted and less commercial than the press
8
release in Weiland, the Court cannot ignore the emails’ inherently commercial elements. For
9
instance, the emails address recipients as “valued EDC customer[s]” and state that recipients “can
10
make [their] own judgment about what to believe and with whom to do business.” Decl. Wathen,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
Ex. A. The emails state that “EDC will continue to provide its customers with the latest in hot
12
water control technology and the best possible service,” and enclose “[a] copy of EDC’s latest
13
sales literature.” Id. EDC’s emails were undoubtedly written to “reassure customers” and “to
14
dispel confusion” as EDC suggests, Decl. Wathen ¶ 4, but the purpose of doing so was to retain
15
customers, generate business, and secure sales. In this context, EDC’s emails served as a unique
16
marketing opportunity. The commercial speech exemption was created precisely to keep such
17
“purely commercial” disputes from being stricken by the anti-SLAPP statute. See Taheri, 160
18
Cal. App. 4th at 491 (citations omitted); see also JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. App. 5th
19
984, 995 (4th Dist. 2016) (“What matters . . . is whether the speech at issue is about the speaker’s
20
product or service or about a competitor’s product or service, whether the speech is intended to
21
induce a commercial transaction, and whether the intended audience includes an actual or potential
22
buyer . . . .”).
23
protection by the commercial speech exemption, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(c). Accordingly,
24
EDC’s special motion to strike is DENIED.2
The Court finds that EDC’s communication is exempted from anti-SLAPP
25
26
2
27
28
Because the Court denies EDC’s motion to strike, EDC is not entitled to its attorneys’
fees and costs for this motion. Seidel and GreenBox may not recover fees and costs either,
because EDC’s motion was not “frivolous” or “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” See
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1).
8
1
B.
Probability of Prevailing
2
Because EDC’s communications are commercial speech, and not entitled to anti-SLAPP
3
protection, Seidel and GreenBox need not demonstrate “a probability that [they] will prevail on”
4
their counterclaims. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). The Court will now address EDC’s
5
alternative motion to dismiss the same counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6
12(b)(6).
7
8
II.
Motion to Dismiss
EDC argues that because its customer emails are protected by California’s litigation
10
privilege, Seidel and GreenBox cannot bring any tort claims based on the emails. Accordingly,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
EDC argues that Seidel and GreenBox cannot prevail on any of the five counterclaims at issue
12
because all five are based on EDC’s privileged communications.
13
The litigation privilege, California Civil Code section 47(b), “protects participants in
14
judicial proceedings from derivative tort actions based on communications in or regarding the
15
judicial proceeding.” eCash Techs., Inc. v. Guagliardo, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1082 (C.D. Cal.
16
2000), aff’d, 35 F. App’x 498 (9th Cir. 2002). The privilege “applies to any publication required
17
or permitted by law in the course of a judicial proceeding to achieve the objects of the litigation,
18
even though the publication is made outside the courtroom and no function of the court or its
19
officers is involved.” Jacob B. v. Cnty. of Shasta, 40 Cal. 4th 948, 955 (2007) (citation and
20
internal quotation marks omitted). “[The] privilege has been given an ‘expansive reach’ by
21
California courts . . . .” eCash Techs., 127 F. Supp. 2d at 1082 (citing Rubin v. Green, 4 Cal. 4th
22
1187, 1194 (1993)). It “bars all tort causes of action except malicious prosecution,” Jacob B., 40
23
Cal. 4th at 960, and applies to communicative acts “(1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial
24
proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of
25
the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.” Id. at 955.
26
For the privilege to attach, it is not necessary that the challenged communication “be
27
relevant or material to an issue before the tribunal but need only have some proper connection or
28
relation to the proceeding and in achieving its objectives.” Costa v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App.
9
Moreover, “[t]he
1
3d 673 (1st Dist. 1984) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
2
litigation privilege can apply to out-of-court statements ‘to nonparties who have a substantial
3
interest in the outcome of the pending litigation.’” Weiland, 814 F. Supp. 2d at 1040 (quoting
4
Castaline v. Aaron Mueller Arts, No. 09-2543, 2010 WL 583944, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2010));
5
see also Costa, 157 Cal. App. 3d at 678 (collecting authority). “Any doubt as to whether such
6
relationship or connection exist[s] must be resolved in favor of a finding of privilege.” Costa, 157
7
Cal. App. 3d at 678 (citations omitted); accord Adams v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App 4th 521, 529
8
(6th Dist. 1992) (“Any doubt as to whether the privilege applies is resolved in favor of applying
9
it.” [citations]).
The communications at issue here were directly related to this judicial proceeding. The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
emails served to inform EDC customers, potential customers, contractors, and developers as to the
12
pending litigation and some of the factual allegations in this case. However, the parties dispute
13
whether the nonparty recipients of EDC’s emails had the necessary “substantial interest” in the
14
outcome of this case to bring the communications within the litigation privilege.
15
The litigation privilege exists because of its “critical role . . . in promoting free access to
16
the courts and in shielding counsel, his or her client and witnesses from having their motives
17
questioned and being subjected to litigation if some connection between [a communication] and
18
the judicial inquiry can be established.” Abraham v. Lancaster Cmty. Hosp., 217 Cal. App. 3d
19
796, 813 (2d Dist. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also O’Neil v.
20
Cunningham, 118 Cal. App. 3d 466, 474 (1st Dist. 1981) (“The contrast between [the two earliest
21
versions] of section 47 . . . is so striking as to suggest that the Legislature intended to insulate from
22
any liability in defamation anybody who, in a judicial proceeding, said or wrote anything about
23
anybody.”). Courts have both broadened and placed certain limitations on the privilege over the
24
years. The privilege now includes “publication[s] to nonparties with a substantial interest in the
25
proceeding[s],” but stops short of protecting statements made to the general public. GetFugu, Inc.
26
v. Patton Boggs LLP, 220 Cal. App. 4th 141, 153 (2d Dist. 2013) (citations and internal quotation
27
marks omitted) (“[T]he expansion [of the litigation privilege] does not encompass publication to
28
the general public through the press.”); see also Abraham, 217 Cal. App. at 811-18 (discussing
10
1
legislative evolution and judicial interpretation of litigation privilege).
In Abraham, the California Court of Appeal held that communications related to federal
3
antitrust and other allegations against a hospital administrator, made within the hospital’s local
4
community, were privileged. 217 Cal. App. 3d at 823. The court held that the local community
5
had a “substantial interest in the outcome of the pending litigation” and were therefore
6
“participants” therein. Id. In Weiland, which involved alleged patent infringement, a federal
7
district court held that a press release sent to a company’s customers, vendors, and certain trade
8
publications was sent to “parties with substantial interest in the outcome” of the litigation. 814 F.
9
Supp. 2d at 1041. The court stated that the recipients had a substantial interest because some
10
already had economic relationships with the defendant, as buyers of the defendant’s goods, and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
that both past customers and potential future customers would have an interest in patent
12
infringement claims against the defendant’s products, as they could face infringement liability for
13
downstream sales. Id.
14
In Neville, an employer fired an employee based on allegations that the employee had
15
stolen customer lists and solicited the employer’s customers to start a competing business. 160
16
Cal. App. 4th at 1259. Before commencing litigation against the employee, the plaintiff’s lawyer
17
wrote to the plaintiff’s current and past customers, accusing the former employee of breach of
18
contract and misappropriation of trade secrets, and suggested that the customers not do business
19
with the former employee “to avoid potential involvement in any ensuing litigation ‘as a material
20
witness, or otherwise.’” Id. The employee commenced a defamation action against his employer
21
based on the letter, and the employer moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. Id. Because
22
“[t]he reasonable relevancy requirement of [the litigation privilege] is analogous to the ‘in
23
connection with’ [litigation] standard of [the anti-SLAPP statute],” id. at 1266, the Court of
24
Appeal looked to California’s litigation privilege as an aid in determining whether the statement
25
was made “in connection with” litigation, and thus protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. Id. at
26
1263, 1266-68. After discussing the litigation privilege in dictum, the court affirmed the trial
27
court’s order striking the employee’s defamation claim because the letter was a protected
28
communication under the anti-SLAPP statute. Id. at 1270-71.
11
Here, EDC’s emails addressed current, former, and potential future customers, as well as
2
contractors and developers. Decl. Wathen ¶ 4. In some instances, EDC appears to have attached a
3
copy of the complaint from this case. See Decl. Wathen, Exs. B-D. The communications sought,
4
in part, to resolve confusion among EDC customers as to EDC’s relationship with Seidel and
5
EDC’s health as a business. Decl. Wathen ¶ 4. The emails were certainly related to EDC’s claims
6
for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, intentional interference with contractual
7
relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court is not
8
convinced, however, that the communications were addressed to nonparties with a “substantial
9
interest” in this litigation, such as might confer an absolute privilege against claims arising from
10
EDC’s emails. EDC distributed the communications broadly, including to many recipients who
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
likely did not know, or care to know, about this litigation. EDC’s distribution was not limited to
12
current customers, parties who might themselves face liability, or parties who might provide
13
evidence or act as witnesses in this dispute, nor were the communications limited to a particular
14
community with an obvious “substantial interest” in the case.
15
complaint, as a stand-alone matter, would be privileged, but the customer emails were not so
16
limited, and the Court is not prepared to extend California’s litigation privilege to immunize the
17
communications in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that California’s litigation privilege,
18
Cal. Civ. Code § 47, does not bar Seidel and GreenBox’s counterclaims.
EDC’s distribution of the
19
EDC has raised no additional arguments as to the sufficiency of Seidel and GreenBox’s
20
counterclaims. As such, the Court DENIES EDC’s motion to dismiss Seidel’s fourth and fifth
21
counterclaims and GreenBox’s first, second, and third counterclaims.
22
23
CONCLUSION
24
EDC’s anti-SLAPP motion fails because the communications at issue are “commercial
25
speech” and exempted from anti-SLAPP protection. Furthermore, the communications are not
26
protected by California’s litigation privilege because they were not sent to parties with a
27
“substantial interest” in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES EDC’s motion to strike
28
and its motion to dismiss Seidel’s fourth and fifth counterclaims and GreenBox’s first, second, and
12
1
third counterclaims. Neither party is entitled to its fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute.
2
3
This order resolves Dkt. No. 55.
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 6, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?