Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC
194 Cal. App. 4th 873
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Young Money and Carter entered into a contract with Digerati to produce a biographical documentary about Carter, including final approval rights and access to Carter and others.
- Digerati produced the film; Carter’s manager objected to certain scenes which Digerati allegedly removed but later did not; Sundance 2009 screening occurred with objections raised by Young Money and Carter.
- Young Money and Carter notified MTV and Viacom of objections and potential liability for unauthorized exhibition, threatening injunctions.
- Digerati filed a cross-complaint alleging breach of express contractual obligations and breach of the implied covenant; it also alleged conduct to hinder sale and distribution and misrepresentations.
- A special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 was heard; the trial court denied the motion as to the contract claim but granted it as to the implied covenant claim.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding the breach of contract count is not based on protected activity, while the breach of implied covenant count arises from protected activity and is barred by the litigation privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the breach of contract count arise from protected activity? | Young Money argues the contract claim rests on petition/free-speech activity. | Digerati contends the contract claim is based on express contractual breaches, not protected activity. | No; contract claim is not protected activity; denial of the anti-SLAPP motion stands. |
| Does the breach of the implied covenant claim arise from protected activity and is the litigation privilege applicable? | Digerati argues the implied covenant claim is based on non-protected conduct. | Young Money contends statements pre- and during litigation are protected and privilege applies. | Yes; implied covenant claim arises from protected activity and is barred by the litigation privilege. |
| Was the prelitigation and litigation conduct sufficiently related to anticipated or actual litigation to be protected under § 425.16? | Digerati argues communications and injunction filings are not tied to litigation. | Young Money contends there were good-faith, serious litigation contemplated, protected by the statute and privilege. | Yes; statements and filings were made in anticipation of litigation and are protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (2006) (anti-SLAPP purpose to protect petition/free speech)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) (elements of anti-SLAPP analysis; probability of prevailing)
- Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 1337 (2007) (independently review of anti-SLAPP determinations)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (1999) (definition of acts in connection with public issues under § 425.16)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (conduct constituting breach of contract may be protected speech or petition)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (2007) (good faith and serious consideration requirement for prelitigation privilege)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) (litigation privilege broad and absolute; prelitigation communications protected)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (arising from protected activity analysis; gravamen of claim)
- Neville v. Chudacoff, 160 Cal.App.4th 1255 (2008) (prelitigation communications in anticipation of litigation)
- Rohde v. Wolf, 154 Cal.App.4th 28 (2007) (prelitigation conduct related to dispute)
- Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal.App.4th 953 (2010) (probability of prevailing standards under anti-SLAPP)
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific B.C., Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (1990) (implied covenant scope and contract relation)
- Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342 (1992) (implied covenant protects reasonable expectations)