Hawran v. Hixson
209 Cal. App. 4th 256
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hawran, Sequenom’s former CFO, sued Sequenom and three directors over a September 28, 2009 press release related to Sequenom’s internal investigation and SEC disclosures.
- The trial court partially granted anti-SLAPP relief, striking some claims but leaving defamation, invasion of privacy, UCL, and breach of contract claims intact against all defendants.
- Defendants argued the press release was protected by Civil Code sections 47(b) and (d) and by the commercial speech exemption, and that the individual defendants were not liable under the group published information doctrine.
- Hawran asserted the press release contained false statements alleging his wrongdoing and caused reputational and employment harms; he also claimed the press release breached an oral agreement to distinguish him from wrongdoers.
- The press release accompanied Sequenom’s Form 8-K disclosures regarding the internal investigation and SEC inquiries, but did not itself summarize the SEC proceeding.
- On appeal, the court held the commercial speech exemption did not apply, but Hawran did show a probability of prevailing on defamation, invasion of privacy, UCL, and breach of contract claims; it also held the absolute and qualified privileges under Civil Code section 47 do not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does commercial speech exemption apply? | Hawran contends the press release concerns corporate matters and is exempt from anti-SLAPP. | Sequenom argues the press release fits 425.17(c) commercial exemption and meets NASDAQ/SEC disclosure aims. | Exemption not satisfied; claims fall under anti-SLAPP. |
| Do absolute/qualified privileges apply to the press release? | Hawran argues Civil Code §47 privileges do not shield the release. | Defendants contend privileged reporting of an official proceeding bars liability. | Privileges do not apply; liability may proceed. |
| Is the group published information doctrine applicable to individual defendants? | Hawran relies on group pleading to attribute statements to named individuals. | Group pleading doctrine does not apply in anti-SLAPP and individual liability must be proven. | Doctrine does not apply; individual liability requires proof of responsible participation. |
| Did Hawran demonstrate a probability of prevailing on defamation/false light/UCL, and breach of contract? | Hawran asserts the statements were false, actionable, and caused damages. | Defendants argue statements were true or protected; no liability. | Hawran demonstrated probability of prevailing on defamation, invasion of privacy, UCL, and breach of contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2010) (defines commercial speech exemption elements and burden on plaintiff)
- Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC, 173 Cal.App.4th 1326 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (contextual reading of defamation in public communications)
- McGarry v. University of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (defamation standards; provable falsehood and totality of circumstances)
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (professional publication liability; responsible part in publication)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) (minimum merit standard for anti-SLAPP; malice and falsity considerations)
- Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 42 Cal.3d 254 (Cal. 1986) (totality of the circumstances in defamation context; fact vs. opinion)
- Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 924 (Cal. 2004) (official proceeding privilege; communications to prompt action)
- Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, 129 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005) (form U-5; official proceeding privilege foundations)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (anti-SLAPP two-prong test; minimal merit standard)