Awakend v. New U Life CA4/3
G063309
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Awakend, LLC, Rodney James, and Danelle Meoli sued New U Life Corp. and individuals associated with it for defamation and business torts after Meoli, a top New U Life distributor, left to start a competing MLM, Awakend.
- Plaintiffs allege that after an initial amicable separation with a non-disparagement agreement, New U Life began defaming Awakend and its founders through articles and statements to distributors and on public websites, resulting in lost business.
- The complaint alleged claims for defamation, trade libel, tortious interference, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.
- Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike all claims, arguing their statements were protected speech under §425.16.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion only as to claims based on articles published on the BehindMLM website for two causes (tortious interference with contract and breach of contract), but otherwise denied the motion.
- Defendants appealed, contending their activities were all protected and that the court erred in evidentiary rulings and in finding sufficient evidence for certain claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are defendants' statements on social media protected activity? | No evidence the statements were in a public forum/interest. | Social media posts/comments are in public fora and thus protected. | Not protected; insufficient evidence of public forum. |
| Are BehindMLM articles protected activity? | Articles not attributable to defendants; not all issues public. | Articles on a public site about public interest (MLM business). | Protected for certain claims. |
| Did plaintiffs show probability of prevailing on trade libel/interference/conspiracy? | Evidence of specific lost distributors/revenue from articles; conduct was wrongful. | No competent evidence articles caused harm or that defendants wrote them. | Sufficient evidence; anti-SLAPP motion denied. |
| Did trial court err in evidentiary rulings? | Declarations based on personal knowledge and can be admitted at trial. | Declarations were speculative/lacked personal knowledge. | No abuse of discretion; objections properly overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (anti-SLAPP step one focuses on whether claim arises from protected activity)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (anti-SLAPP requires stepwise analysis and claims must have 'minimal merit')
- Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co., 6 Cal.5th 931 (Cal. 2019) (admissible evidence at anti-SLAPP step two is what would be capable of admission at trial)
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994) (agent’s immunity rule for civil conspiracy)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (de novo review on anti-SLAPP motion)