Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy
4 Cal. App. 5th 1135
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. (Industrial Carting) hauls construction & demolition (C&D) waste under city franchises; Global Materials Recovery Services (separate entity) operates an MRF on the same property.
- IntelliWaste (Murphy) prepared a Report for competitor North Bay analyzing C&D diversion rates for several Sonoma County jurisdictions and questioned Industrial Carting’s reported 100%/87% diversion figures.
- North Bay gave the Report to the Novato Sanitary District; the District subsequently entered an exclusive agreement with North Bay, excluding Industrial Carting.
- Industrial Carting sued (defamation, trade libel, negligent interference, unfair competition); defendants moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute.
- Trial court found defendants’ statements were protected speech under the anti‑SLAPP law but denied the motion, concluding plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing; defendants appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held the Report addressed a matter of public interest and was covered by the anti‑SLAPP statute, and reversed the denial because plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of falsity (and thus failed to show a probability of prevailing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Report is protected speech under anti‑SLAPP (§425.16) | Report was commercial/commercial criticism not entitled to anti‑SLAPP protection | Report addressed diversion/recycling — a matter of public interest and thus protected | Protected: speech addressed public interest (§425.16(e)(4)); anti‑SLAPP applies |
| Whether anti‑SLAPP §425.17(c) exemption (competitor commercial speech) applies | Defendants acted as agent for competitor North Bay; speech was commercial and exempt from anti‑SLAPP | §425.17(c) applies only to persons ‘‘primarily engaged’’ in selling goods/services; defendants were not such competitors/agents | Exemption does not apply; court construes §425.17(c) narrowly and declines to expand to non‑competitor consultants |
| Whether plaintiff met burden to show probability of prevailing (falsity of statements) | Declarations argued methodology flawed and defendants misinterpreted plaintiff’s reporting terms; statements were false | Plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence of actual diversion rates or the true facts to show substantial falsity | Plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing of falsity; summary‑judgment‑like inquiry requires more than denials — anti‑SLAPP motion must be granted |
| Whether plaintiff must prove actual malice (limited‑purpose public figure) | Plaintiff not a public figure; malice not required | Statements concern public interest; if plaintiff is limited‑purpose public figure, malice required | Court did not reach malice issue because falsity failure alone required reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (sets forth anti‑SLAPP two‑step analysis and burden shift)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (2011) (anti‑SLAPP plaintiff burden compared to summary judgment‑like inquiry)
- City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (2016) (statutory definitions control whether activity is protected under §425.16(e))
- Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2005) (plaintiff must identify provably false imputations and submit evidence of substantial falsity)
- Vegod Corp. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 25 Cal.3d 763 (1979) (commercial criticism not entitled to special First Amendment actual‑malice protection)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (2007) (plaintiff must make prima facie showing that claim is legally sufficient and supported by admissible evidence)