Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al

Filing 149

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 144 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.'S PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE filed by Greenpeace Fund, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 9, 2017. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KARL OLSON (SBN 104760)
AARON R. FIELD (SBN 310648)
CANNATA, O’TOOLE, FICKES & ALMAZAN LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
GREENPEACE FUND, INC.

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15

RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.,
RESOLUTE FP US, INC., RESOLUTE FP
AUGUSTA, LLC, FIBREK GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP, FIBREK U.S., INC.,
FIBREK INTERNATIONAL INC., and
RESOLUTE FP CANADA, INC.,

16

Date:
Time:
Department:

v.
18

20
21
22
23

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING
ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S
PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND
STRIKE

Plaintiffs,

17

19

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-02824-JST

October 10, 2017
2:00 p.m.
Ctrm. 9, 19th Floor

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL (aka
“GREENPEACE STICHTING COUNCIL”),
GREENPEACE, INC., GREENPEACE
FUND, INC., FORESTETHICS, DANIEL
BRINDIS, AMY MOAS, MATTHEW
DAGGETT, ROLF SKAR, TODD PAGLIA,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

1

This stipulation is entered into by and among defendant Greenpeace Fund, Inc., on the

2

one hand, and plaintiffs Resolute Forest Products, Inc., Resolute FP US, Inc., Resolute FP

3

Augusta LLC, Fibrek General Partnership, Fibrek US, Inc., Fibrek International Inc., and

4

Resolute FP Canada, Inc. (collectively, “plaintiffs”), on the other hand, by and through their

5

respective counsel.

6
7

WHEREAS, on May 31, 2016, plaintiffs filed the instant action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia;

8

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2016, Greenpeace Fund, Inc. moved to dismiss

9

plaintiffs’ complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 61) and to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint

10
11

under the anti-SLAPP statute (ECF No. 60);
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the Honorable Judge Randal Hall, Chief Judge of the

12

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, issued an Order granting the

13

Greenpeace Defendants’ motion to transfer for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

14

1406(a), and transferred the instant action to the Northern District of California (ECF No.

15

104). The Order did not address the substantive arguments set forth in Greenpeace Fund,

16

Inc.’s pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 61) or the motion of defendants, including

17

Greenpeace Fund, Inc., to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (ECF No. 60) (collectively, the

18

“Pending Motions”);

19

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2017, plaintiffs and defendants Greenpeace International,

20

Greenpeace, Inc., Daniel Brindis, Amy Moas, Matthew Daggett, and Rolf Skar stipulated to a

21

briefing schedule whereby they would supplement the briefing on their pending motions to

22

provide the Court with guidance on how to resolve them under California and Ninth Circuit

23

law (ECF No. 129);

24

WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017, the Court entered an Order pursuant to the stipulation of

25

the parties authorizing plaintiffs and defendants Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc.,

26

Daniel Brindis, Amy Moas, Matthew Daggett, and Rolf Skar to supplement the briefing

27

pursuant to a schedule proposed by those parties (ECF No. 131);

28
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

WHEREAS, on July 21, 2017, present counsel for Greenpeace Fund, Inc. requested

1
2

leave to appear as substitute counsel in this matter (ECF No. 135), and on July 25, 2017, the

3

Court granted the request (ECF No. 137);
WHEREAS, plaintiffs and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. have met and conferred and agreed

4
5

that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. should be allowed, in the interest of justice and fairness, to join in

6

the supplemental brief of the other defendants and file its own supplemental brief, which is

7

attached hereto as Exhibit 1, on the impact of California and Ninth Circuit precedent on

8

plaintiffs’ claims against Greenpeace Fund, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE, plaintiffs and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. stipulate and agree as

9
10

follows:
1.

11

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. may file the supplemental brief in support of its pending
motions to dismiss and to strike that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1;

12
2.

13

The plaintiffs may respond to Greenpeace Fund, Inc.’s supplemental brief in a

14

supplemental brief in further opposition to the Pending Motions on or before

15

September 12, 2017;
3.

16

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. may file a supplemental reply brief in further support of
the Pending Motions on or before September 26, 2017; and

17
4.

18

Oral argument on the Pending Motions will be held on October 10, 2017, at
2:00 p.m.

19
20

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

1

DATED: August 7, 2017

CANNATA, O’TOOLE, FICKES & ALMAZAN LLP
By:

2

/s/ Karl Olson
KARL OLSON

3
Karl Olson
Aaron R. Field

4
5

Attorneys for Defendant
GREENPEACE FUND, INC.

6
7
DATED: August 7, 2017

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

8
By:
9
10
11

/s/ Lauren Tabaksblat
LAUREN TABAKSBLAT

Lyn R. Agre
Michael J. Bowe
Lauren Tabaksblat

12
13
14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., RESOLUTE
FP US, INC., RESOLUTE FP AUGUSTA, LLC, FIBREK
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, FIBREK U.S., INC.,
FIBREK INTERNATIONAL INC., and RESOLUTE FP
CANADA, INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:

3

1.

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. may file the supplemental brief in support of its pending

4

motions to dismiss and to strike that is attached to its stipulation with the

5

plaintiffs as Exhibit 1;

6

2.

The plaintiffs may respond to Greenpeace Fund, Inc.’s supplemental brief in a

7

supplemental brief in further opposition to the Pending Motions on or before

8

September 12, 2017;

9

3.

10
11
12

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. may file a supplemental reply brief in further support of
the Pending Motions on or before September 26, 2017; and

4.

Oral argument on the Pending Motions will take place on October 10, 2017 at
2:00 p.m.

13
14

August 9, 2017
Dated: _________________

________________________________
HON. JON S. TIGAR

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

1
2
3
4
5

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)
I, Karl Olson, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained
from the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 7th day of August, 2017 at San Francisco, California.

6
/s/ Karl Olson
KARL OLSON

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S PENDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

EXHIBIT 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KARL OLSON (SBN 104760)
AARON R. FIELD (SBN 310648)
CANNATA, O’TOOLE, FICKES & ALMAZAN LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
GREENPEACE FUND, INC.

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15

RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.,
RESOLUTE FP US, INC., RESOLUTE FP
AUGUSTA, LLC, FIBREK GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP, FIBREK U.S., INC.,
FIBREK INTERNATIONAL INC., and
RESOLUTE FP CANADA, INC.,

16

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-02824-JST
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF
GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER
GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

17
v.
18
19
20
21
22
23

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL (aka
“GREENPEACE STICHTING COUNCIL”),
GREENPEACE, INC., GREENPEACE
FUND, INC., FORESTETHICS, DANIEL
BRINDIS, AMY MOAS, MATTHEW
DAGGETT, ROLF SKAR, TODD PAGLIA,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20,

Date:
Time:
Department:

October 10, 2017
2:00 p.m.
Ctrm. 9, 19th Floor

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of

1
2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 61, and made a special motion to strike the

3

complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, ECF No. 60 at 1. Greenpeace Fund, Inc. hereby

4

joins in the supplemental brief in support of both motions filed by Greenpeace International,

5

Greenpeace, Inc., Daniel Brindis, Amy Moas, Matthew Daggett, and Rolf Skar, ECF No. 127-

6

1. Greenpeace Fund, Inc. also files this supplemental brief to elaborate on several reasons for

7

granting both motions under California and Ninth Circuit law that apply to it with special

8

force.

9

I.

INTRODUCTION

10

The plaintiffs’ litigation strategy in this case is a new spin on an old tactic that courts

11

have long rejected as an impermissible end run around the First Amendment. The plaintiffs

12

have recast their defamation claims as RICO claims and other state torts by supplementing

13

them with conclusory and threadbare allegations. They now invite this Court to disregard the

14

First Amendment limitations developed in defamation cases as a result. This Court should

15

decline their invitation to embark on such a dangerous path. It should then hold that under

16

California and Ninth Circuit law, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Greenpeace

17

Fund, Inc., and put this SLAPP suit out of its misery sooner rather than later.

18

II.

19
20
21

ARGUMENT
A.

THE PLAINTIFFS MUST PLAUSIBLY PLEAD ACTUAL MALICE TO SUPPORT ALL
OF THEIR CAUSES OF ACTION.

The actual malice standard is a critical component of the First Amendment protections

22

for participation in politics and public discourse. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.

23

254, 268-80 (1964). It precludes a public figure plaintiff from recovering “for a defamatory

24

falsehood” absent clear and convincing evidence that the statement was made with knowledge

25

of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not, id. at 279-80, and that the

26

statement was materially false, Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 134 S. Ct. 852, 861

27

(2014). To establish reckless disregard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the publisher “in

28
1
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication,” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390

2

U.S. 727, 731 (1968), or acted with a “high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity,”

3

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964). To establish material falsity, the plaintiff must

4

demonstrate that the statement “ ‘would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from

5

that which the pleaded truth would have produced.’ ” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.,

6

501 U.S. 496, 517 (1991) (quoting Robert Sack, Libel, Slander, and Related Problems 138

7

(1980)); see also Bustos v. A&E Television Networks, 646 F.3d 762, 763-69 (10th Cir. 2011)

8

(Gorsuch, J.) (discussing the material falsity requirement and holding that referring to a

9

prisoner as a “member” of a gang when he was really an “affiliate” was not a material

10

falsehood). The plaintiff must establish actual malice as to each defendant. Cantrell v. Forest

11

City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 253 (1974); Murray v. Bailey, 613 F. Supp. 1276, 1281 (N.D.

12

Cal. 1985).

13

The Supreme Court has long held that no cause of action can claim “talismanic

14

immunity from constitutional limitations.” New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 269; see also id.

15

at 279-80 (holding that a public official may not recover “for a defamatory falsehood” without

16

proving actual malice).

17

Accordingly, it has applied the actual malice standard to a broad spectrum of claims

18

arising from alleged injurious falsehoods. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46,

19

56 (1988) (intentional infliction of emotional distress); Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466

20

U.S. 485, 513-14 (1985) (product disparagement); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 386-87

21

(1967) (false light invasion of privacy).

22

This State and this Circuit follow these precedents, and hold that whether a plaintiff

23

must satisfy First Amendment requirements like the actual malice standard depends on the

24

substance of a cause of action, not its form or label. See, e.g., Blatty v. New York Times Co.,

25

42 Cal. 3d 1033, 1042-43, 1045 (1986) (holding that “the various limitations rooted in the

26

First Amendment are applicable to all injurious falsehood claims and not solely to those

27

labeled ‘defamation’ ” and plaintiffs cannot circumnavigate these limitations by “creative

28
2
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

pleading” that “affix[es] labels other than defamation to injurious falsehood claims”); Med.

2

Lab Mgmt. Consultants v. ABC, 306 F.3d 806, 821 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that tortious

3

interference causes of action based on injurious falsehoods were subject to traditional First

4

Amendment requirements); Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180, 1183, 1187

5

(9th Cir. 2001) (holding that right of publicity, Unfair Competition Law, and Lanham Act

6

causes of action based on injurious falsehoods were subject to “the full First Amendment

7

protections afforded noncommercial speech,” including the actual malice standard); Unelko

8

Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that product disparagement

9

and tortious interference causes of action based on injurious falsehoods were “subject to the

10

same First Amendment requirements that govern actions for defamation”).
Thus, under California and Ninth Circuit law, where a cause of action is founded on

11
12

allegations that an injurious falsehood published to a third party has caused the plaintiff

13

reputational harm (i.e. “a defamatory falsehood,” New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 279-80)

14

and the plaintiff is a public figure, the actual malice standard applies.1
Applying this rule, the actual malice standard applies to all of the plaintiffs’ causes of

15
16

action. As the defendants have explained before, the plaintiffs are public figures, see ECF

17

Nos. 62 at 26-29, 98 at 19, 127-1 at 15-17, and the plaintiffs’ causes of action are all based on

18

a series of alleged statements about them to third parties concerning matters of public interest,

19

see, e.g., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 84-99 & 88 n.1 (citing Appendix A, ECF No. 1-1 at 1-6), 100-04 &

20

n.2 (citing Appendix B, ECF No. 1-1 at 7-8), 105-14 & n.3 (citing Appendix C, ECF No. 1-1

21

at 9-17), 115-24 & n.4 (citing Appendix D, ECF No. 1-1 at 18-23), 125-34 & n.5 (citing

22

Appendix E, ECF No. 1-1 at 24-29), 135-42 & n.6 (citing Appendix F, ECF No. 1-1 at 30-36),

23

218 (incorporating prior allegations into 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) cause of action), 226-27 (setting

24
25
26
27
28

1

If the actual malice standard applied based on form rather than substance, plaintiffs could
evade it by simply “affix[ing] labels other than defamation to injurious falsehood claims.”
See Blatty, 42 Cal. 3d at 1042-45; see also Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local 655, 39 F.3d 191, 196 (8th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he malice
standard required for actionable defamation claims during labor disputes must equally be met
for a tortious interference claim based on the same conduct or statements. [Fn.] This is only
logical as a plaintiff may not avoid the protection afforded by the Constitution and federal
labor law merely by the use of creative pleading.”).
3
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

forth alleged fraudulent communications in table format), 237 (incorporating paragraphs 1-

2

227 into 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) cause of action), 245 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into 18

3

U.S.C. § 1962(d) cause of action), 254 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into O.C.G.A § 16-

4

14-4(b) cause of action), 271 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into O.C.G.A §16-14-4(c) cause

5

of action), 279 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into defamation cause of action), 288

6

(incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into tortious interference with prospective business relations

7

cause of action), 297 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into tortious interference with

8

contractual relations cause of action), 305 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into civil

9

conspiracy cause of action), 310 (incorporating paragraphs 1-227 into trademark dilution

10

cause of action). As a result, the actual malice standard applies to the plaintiffs’ entire

11

complaint.

12

B.

13
14
15
16
17

THE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS OF ACTUAL MALICE AGAINST GREENPEACE
FUND, INC. ARE CONCLUSORY AND THREADBARE, AND THUS LEGALLY
INSUFFICIENT.

The plaintiffs’ complaint must allege actual malice in a non-conclusory, plausible
fashion to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)2 motion to dismiss. In the wake of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662 (2009), the Ninth Circuit uses a two-step process to determine whether a plaintiff has
stated a sufficiently plausible claim:

18
First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or
counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must
contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable
the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual allegations
that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it
is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of
discovery and continued litigation.

19
20
21
22
23

Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014).

24

Applying similar processes, every federal appellate court that has considered the question

25

post-Iqbal has dismissed complaints subject to the actual malice standard for failing to allege

26

actual malice in a non-conclusory, plausible way. Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d

27
28

2

All references to Rules in this brief are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise specified.
4
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

686, 701-02 (11th Cir. 2016); Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544-45 (2d Cir. 2015);

2

McDonald v. Wise, 769 F.3d 1202, 1220 (10th Cir. 2014); Pippen v. NBC Universal Media,

3

LLC, 734 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2013); Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing,

4

Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 377 (4th Cir. 2012); Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669

5

F.3d 50, 58 (1st Cir. 2012).

6

This requirement is consistent with the Supreme Court’s explicit holding in Iqbal that

7

the plaintiff must plead the defendant’s state of mind in a non-conclusory, plausible way even

8

though Rule 9(b) permits a plaintiff to do so “generally” and despite the potential utility of

9

discovery. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686-87.

10

It is also consistent with a long line of cases from the Ninth Circuit and this Court that

11

have carefully scrutinized actual malice allegations where the complaint clearly implicated

12

First Amendment values. See Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. S.F. Local Joint Exec. Bd.

13

of Culinary Workers, 542 F.2d 1076, 1082-84 (9th Cir. 1976) (applying heightened pleading

14

standard to dismiss complaint because it clearly implicated the First Amendment) (citing, inter

15

alia, Time, Inc., 385 U.S. at 387-91; New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 267-83); Wynn v.

16

Chanos, 75 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1238-40 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing defamation complaint

17

with leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(6) due in part to deficient allegations of actual malice);

18

Wynn v. Chanos, Case No. 14-cv-04329-WHO, 2015 WL 971360, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3,

19

2015) (dismissing defamation complaint without leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(6) and

20

granting anti-SLAPP motion due in part to deficient allegations of actual malice); Nicosia v.

21

De Rooy, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1109 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (stating that “conclusory statements that

22

[a defamation defendant] should have known the truth does not satisfy the heightened

23

pleading standard” of actual malice); Barry v. Time, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 1110, 1121-22 (N.D.

24

Cal. 1984) (recognizing that actual malice should be tested at the pleading stage and

25

concluding that complaint insufficiently alleged actual malice); Barger v. Playboy

26

Enterprises, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 1151, 1156-57 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (recognizing that actual

27

malice should be tested at the pleading stage and dismissing complaint without leave to amend

28
5
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

due in part to deficient allegations of actual malice).3
The plaintiffs have not pled and cannot plausibly plead that Greenpeace Fund, Inc.

2
3

published any injurious falsehood with actual malice. As the defendants have stated

4

elsewhere, the plaintiffs have alleged almost nothing that is specific to Greenpeace Fund, Inc.

5

See ECF Nos. 61 at 2-12, 18, 97 at 2-5. They have not plausibly alleged that Greenpeace

6

Fund, Inc. is responsible for defaming them in the first instance. See ECF No. 61 at 11-12, 97

7

at 2-5; see also ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 33 (alleging in a conclusory fashion that Greenpeace Fund, Inc.

8

was involved in planning “GP-Inc.’s forest campaign [sic]” in some unspecified way), 41(b)

9

(conceding that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is a “separate and distinct legal entit[y]” from the other

10

Greenpeace entities, but nevertheless also alleging in a conclusory fashion that Greenpeace

11

Fund, Inc. was somehow “intimately involved” in the other Greenpeace entities’ campaigns),

12

42(l) and 45 (alleging in a conclusory fashion that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. published

13

unspecified “disinformation” and was somehow “actively involved” in a campaign through its

14

Executive Director); ECF No. 1-1 (setting forth numerous allegedly false publications, but not

15

attributing a single one of these publications to Greenpeace Fund, Inc.). A fortiori, they have

16

not plausibly alleged that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is responsible for publishing anything

17

materially false with knowledge of its falsity or subjective awareness that it was probably

18

false. See Wynn, 75 F. Supp. 3d at 1139 (dismissing defamation cause of action for, among

19

other things, failure to allege actual malice where “[t]he complaint’s allegation that Chanos

20

‘published [the statements] with reckless disregard for the truth’ . . . is conclusory, as it

21

merely recites an element of slander and does not present any potential supporting facts”).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

But cf. Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1118, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2002) (in a decision that
predates Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686-87, affirming trial court’s decision not to decide actual malice
issue on a motion to dismiss). In light of Iqbal, the unanimous chorus of appellate courts
post-Iqbal that have applied the plausibility standard it endorsed to allegations of actual
malice, and the fact that courts in this district have rigorously examined the plausibility of
actual malice allegations on a motion to dismiss for years, including in a 2014 decision, Wynn,
75 F. Supp. 3d at 1238-40, this portion of Flowers appears “out of line with the current state
of the law.” See Michel, 816 F.3d at 702. Also, this portion of Flowers referred only to the
fault element of the actual malice test, and said nothing of the falsity element, which is a
“question of law for the court” on a motion to dismiss. See Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers
Union, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1045-46 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
6
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

In addition, even if the plaintiffs had alleged that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. was both

2

responsible for publishing alleged statements and motivated by economic interests or an

3

animus toward the plaintiffs in a non-conclusory, plausible way (and they have not), that

4

would not suffice to plead actual malice.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Economic interests of the defendant and animus toward the plaintiff cannot
serve as a basis for actual malice. Harte–Hanks Comm. Inc. v.
Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665 (1989) (“Motive in publishing a story . . .
cannot provide a sufficient basis for finding actual malice.”) “[T]he actual
malice standard is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or ‘malice’
in the ordinary sense of the term.” Id. at 666. “Nor can the fact that the
defendant published the defamatory material in order to increase its profits
suffice to prove actual malice.” Id. at 667.
Nicosia, 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1109.

11

The plaintiffs’ conclusory and threadbare allegations against Greenpeace Fund, Inc.

12

would warrant granting its motions to dismiss and to strike in any context. Plaintiffs do not

13

spell out any particular actions by Greenpeace Fund, Inc. in connection with the advocacy at

14

issue. But granting Greenpeace Fund, Inc.’s motions to dismiss and to strike is particularly

15

important here because the plaintiffs have alleged a vast and utterly implausible racketeering

16

conspiracy that would require extensive discovery and be extremely expensive to litigate.

17

Allowing this case to proceed against Greenpeace Fund, Inc. would leave intact the specter of

18

ruinous liability for a defendant that has done little more than fund “a separate and distinct

19

legal entit[y],” ECF No. 1 ¶ 41(b), that engaged in an advocacy campaign. If merely funding

20

an entity made the funder liable for the entity’s speech about a public figure on a matter of

21

public concern, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, and Nat King Cole could all have been held

22

liable for the advertisement at issue in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),

23

since their names appeared on it, and arguably any advertiser in a publication (or even a

24

shareholder in a publicly-held publisher) could be held liable.

25

In sum, under California and Ninth Circuit law, the actual malice standard applies to

26

all of the plaintiffs’ causes of action, and this Court should grant Greenpeace Fund, Inc’s

27

motions to dismiss and to strike because plaintiffs have failed to plead actual malice against

28
7
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. in a non-conclusory, plausible way.
C.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CIVIL RICO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GREENPEACE FUND,
INC. ARE AS THREADBARE – AND THUS AS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT – AS THEIR
ALLEGATIONS OF ACTUAL MALICE.

To state a legally sufficient civil RICO claim in the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs’ civil
RICO allegations must all satisfy Rule 9(b). See Mostowfi v. i2 Telecom Intern., Inc., 269
Fed. Appx. 621, 623-25 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 9(b) “applies to civil RICO fraud claims.”
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the Ninth

8

Circuit has recognized that “Rule 9(b) may apply to claims – that although lacking fraud as an

9

element – are ‘grounded’ or ‘sound’ in fraud.” See Mostowfi, 269 Fed. Appx. at 623-25

10
11

(quoting Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Where a plaintiff alleges a “unified course of fraudulent conduct” and “rel[ies] entirely

12

on that course of conduct as the basis of a claim,” the claim is “ ‘grounded in fraud’ ” and “

13

‘sound[s] in fraud’ ” and “the pleading of that claim as a whole must satisfy the particularity

14
15
16
17
18
19

requirement of Rule 9(b).” Vess, 317 F.3d at 1103-04. In this latter context, the Ninth Circuit
has dismissed civil RICO claims predicated on extortion for failing to meet the strictures of
Rule 9(b). Mostowfi, 269 Fed. Appx. at 624. The plaintiffs’ civil RICO causes of action are
all based on an alleged unified course of fraudulent conduct, so all of them must be alleged in
a manner that comports with Rule 9(b) to survive a motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs’ civil RICO causes of action cannot satisfy this exacting standard. Rule

20

9(b) provides, “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or

21

mistake shall be stated with particularity.” It “requires a pleader of fraud to detail with

22
23
24
25

particularity the time, place, and manner of each act of fraud, plus the role of each defendant
in each scheme.” Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405
(9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). In Mostowfi, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had
failed to satisfy these requirements where their civil RICO allegations were comprised largely

26

of “general statements about actions committed by the defendants,” they alleged multiple

27

predicate acts but did not specify who committed what violation, and they “lump[ed] together

28
8
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

the defendants without identifying the particular acts or omissions that each defendant

2

committed.” 269 Fed. Appx. at 624.

3

These rules verify the insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ civil RICO allegations against

4

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. The plaintiffs’ civil RICO allegations against Greenpeace Fund, Inc.

5

consist of little more than conclusory generalities, see ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 218-78, and do almost

6

nothing but “lump” Greenpeace Fund, Inc. in with the other defendants. That is not sufficient

7

to give Greenpeace Fund, Inc. “ ‘notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to

8

constitute the fraud charged so [it] can defend against the charge and not just deny [it has]

9

done anything wrong,’ ” therefore it is not sufficient to state a claim against Greenpeace Fund,

10

Inc. See Mostowfi, 269 Fed. Appx. at 625 (quoting Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 671

11

(9th Cir. 1993)).

12

The parties have identified numerous other reasons why the plaintiffs’ civil RICO

13

allegations fail to state a claim, and all of them remain sound under Ninth Circuit precedent.

14

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. joins in the arguments for dismissing the plaintiffs’ civil RICO causes

15

of action presented by the other parties in support of their separate motions to dismiss, ECF

16

Nos. 55-1, 94, to the extent they support dismissing these causes of action against Greenpeace

17

Fund, Inc.

18

D.

19
20

IF THE COURT GRANTS GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, IT MUST GRANT GREENPEACE FUND, INC.’S
ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AS A MATTER OF LAW.

Because the plaintiffs cannot state a claim against Greenpeace Fund, Inc., the Court

21

should grant Greenpeace Fund Inc.’s special motion to strike. See Wynn, 2015 WL 971360, at

22

*4. “The standard applied for an anti-SLAPP motion – probability of prevailing on the merits

23

– presents a higher burden than the plausibility standard applied for a motion to dismiss. If

24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs cannot plead a plausible cause of action under the FRCP 12(b)(6) standard, then
Plaintiffs as a matter of law cannot meet the probability of success on the merits standard.”
Xu v. Yamanaka, Case No. 13-CV-3240 YGR, 2014 WL 342271, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30,
2014). Alternatively, if the Court grants Greenpeace Fund, Inc.’s motion to dismiss with

28
9
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS

1

leave to amend, it should permit Greenpeace Fund, Inc. to raise its anti-SLAPP motion again

2

after the plaintiffs’ time to respond has expired or in response to the amended complaint. See

3

Wynn, 75 F. Supp. 3d at 1231 n.1.

4

III.

5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, under California and Ninth Circuit law, the plaintiffs have

6

failed to state a single legally sufficient cause of action against Greenpeace Fund, Inc. in their

7

124-page complaint. In addition to the many deficiencies in the complaint that the defendants

8

have descibed elsewhere, all of the plaintiffs’ causes of action fail to state a claim against

9

Greenpeace Fund, Inc. because they inadequately allege actual malice. The plaintiffs’ civil

10

RICO causes of action also fail to state a claim against Greenpeace Fund, Inc. under Ninth

11

Circuit law.

12
Respectfully submitted,

13
14
15

DATED: August 7, 2017

CANNATA, O’TOOLE, FICKES & ALMAZAN LLP
By:

/s/ Karl Olson
KARL OLSON

16
17
18
19

Karl Olson
Aaron R. Field
Attorneys for Defendant
GREENPEACE FUND, INC.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF GREENPEACE FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE; JOINDER IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF OTHER GREENPEACE DEFENDANTS