Jenni Rivera Enters., LLC v. Latin World Entm't Holdings, Inc.
36 Cal. App. 5th 766
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Jenni Rivera Enterprises (JRE) alleges former manager Pete Salgado signed a continuing nondisclosure agreement (NDA) forbidding disclosure/use of Rivera family confidences; JRE produced a signed original and a forensic examiner opinion supporting authenticity.
- Salgado entered into production agreements and authored/marketed an unpublished manuscript; he later partnered with producers (BTF, Dhana, Latin World) and Univision to create and broadcast a TV series based on his manuscript.
- JRE sent a June 3, 2016 cease-and-desist (with the NDA) to Salgado and the producers; Salgado at various times denied signing the NDA and later conceded or attempted alternative explanations.
- JRE sued Salgado and the producers for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with contract, and inducing breach; later sued Univision for interference and inducing breach after Univision broadcast the series.
- Producers and Univision filed anti-SLAPP special motions under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16; the trial court denied both motions. On appeal, the court affirmed as to the producers but reversed as to Univision on First Amendment grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JRE made a prima facie showing of interference/inducing breach against the Producers | Producers knew of the NDA (cease-and-desist) and, through payments/credits/marketing, intentionally induced Salgado to continue breaching his ongoing NDA obligations | Producers lacked knowledge of the NDA when development began; they reasonably relied on Salgado’s denials and thus did not intend to induce breach | Affirmed: JRE met the low anti‑SLAPP prima facie threshold as to the Producers (reasonable inferences that Producers knew of NDA and their acts were substantially certain to induce breaches) |
| Whether successive/partial breaches of a continuing NDA can support interference/inducing claims | JRE: continuous NDA duties give rise to discrete breaches and separate actionable interference each time confidential info is disclosed or used | Producers: liability cannot be predicated on post‑knowledge conduct when initial breach preceded their involvement; no California authority recognizes continuing‑breach theory for these torts | Court accepted that continuing obligations can produce multiple actionable breaches; JRE made sufficient showing that later breaches occurred after defendants' knowledge |
| Whether Univision is protected by the First Amendment for broadcasting the series | JRE: Univision induced tortious breaches after learning of the NDA; paying/promoting Salgado was not a routine newsgathering technique and therefore not protected | Univision: had no knowledge of the NDA when it contracted; broadcast of truthful, newsworthy material about a public figure is protected; any post‑notice acts were not wrongful enough to displace protection | Reversed as to Univision: First Amendment protects Univision’s lawfully obtained reporting/broadcasting here because Univision lacked initial knowledge and post‑notice conduct was not unlawful/wrongful enough to defeat the privilege |
| Standard and burden on anti‑SLAPP second step (probability of success) | JRE: only a minimal prima facie showing is required; reasonable inferences from admissible evidence suffice | Defendants: JRE must show clear evidence (not mere inference) and defenses (e.g., First Amendment) should be weighed to defeat the claim | Court reiterated anti‑SLAPP second‑step is summary‑judgment‑like but requires only a prima facie showing of minimal merit; reasonable inferences may satisfy plaintiff’s burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (press has no special constitutional right of access to information unavailable to the public)
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (generally applicable laws can apply to the press; breach of promise to source actionable)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (publication of lawfully obtained truthful information on public matters may be protected even if original acquisition was wrongful by a third party)
- Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) (publication based on government release is routine reporting and constitutionally protected)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (speech on public issues receives heightened First Amendment protection)
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200 (1998) (First Amendment does not shield torts/crimes committed to gather news; lawful newsgathering of public matters may be privileged)
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) (elements and state of mind for tortious interference with contract)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (anti‑SLAPP framework and plaintiffs' burden at second step)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (2011) (reasonable inferences from evidence can meet anti‑SLAPP prima facie requirement)
- Imperial Ice Co. v. Rossier, 18 Cal.2d 33 (1941) (performance of a lawful contract that results in a third‑party breach does not by itself establish tortious interference)