Kinda v. Carpenter
247 Cal. App. 4th 1268
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Artisan Fine Oriental Rug Care and owners Margaret and Aaron Kinda sued landlord Scott Carpenter for lease-related breaches (noise, inspections, parking, notices); plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against some landlord conduct.
- Immediately after the TRO issued (June 1–3, 2011), three negative Yelp reviews appeared under aliases; plaintiffs suspected Carpenter and amended to add defamation claims for Artisan and Margaret Kinda.
- Plaintiffs subpoenaed Yelp, Comcast, and AT&T records; Yelp produced IP addresses for the posts, Comcast/AT&T produced subscriber records that (circumstantially) linked those IP addresses to accounts associated with Scott Carpenter.
- A discovery judge allowed limited financial discovery, finding the circumstantial IP evidence compelling for that purpose, but expressly limited that finding to the discovery motion.
- A different trial judge granted defendant’s in limine motion excluding the Yelp, Comcast, and AT&T records for lack of foundation/authentication, then granted a directed verdict for defendant on defamation; a jury later found defendant breached the lease but awarded no contract damages; the court awarded defendant attorney’s fees as prevailing party.
- The Court of Appeal held the exclusion of the Yelp/IP evidence and the directed verdict on defamation was erroneous and reversed the judgment (and the attorney’s fees prevailing-party determination), finding the evidentiary issues should have been for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authenticity/admissibility of Yelp posts and ISP subscriber records | Kinda: printouts and subpoenaed ISP records (with expert testimony) sufficiently authenticate posts and permit a jury to infer Carpenter posted them | Carpenter: ISP records only tie posts to routers/accounts, not to Carpenter personally; gaps in Comcast retention and ambiguity in AT&T records defeat foundation | Court: Exclusion was error — authentication/foundation questions created competing inferences for the jury; circumstantial evidence could support a finding Carpenter posted reviews; evidence should have been admitted for jury evaluation |
| Whether trial court improperly revisited discovery judge’s prior findings | Kinda: trial court improperly re-litigated and undermined prior discovery ruling allowing financial discovery | Carpenter: prior discovery finding was non-binding and limited; trial court free to assess admissibility at trial | Court: No procedural error in reconsideration — the prior judge’s factual observation was nonbinding; but trial court nonetheless applied an incorrect standard when excluding evidence |
| Directed verdict on defamation (publication/causation) | Kinda: indirect/circumstantial proof (IP link, timing, expert testimony, lack of matching customers) suffices to let jury infer publication by Carpenter | Carpenter: plaintiffs failed to prove publication by him; IP evidence cannot identify a specific person or device conclusively | Court: Directed verdict improper — reasonable jury could infer Carpenter’s responsibility from combined circumstantial evidence; nonsuit standard required drawing inferences for plaintiffs |
| Prevailing-party determination and attorney’s fees award | Kinda: exclusion of defamation evidence prejudiced contract outcome and could have changed prevailing-party status; fees award should be reversed | Carpenter: fee award appropriate because he prevailed at trial on contract claims; fee clause broadly covers proceedings arising from lease breaches | Court: Reversed prevailing-party and fees determination because erroneous exclusion of defamation evidence and resulting impact on credibility/damages made outcome on contract claims and prevailing-party status unreliable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 49 Cal.4th 334 (explanation: discusses nature and limitations of IP addresses as identifiers)
- Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (explanation: use and limits of in limine to dispose of claims; standard when motion effectively precludes a cause of action)
- Dillingham-Ray Wilson v. City of Los Angeles, 182 Cal.App.4th 1396 (explanation: independent review where in limine precludes an entire claim)
- Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, 117 Cal.App.4th 1138 (explanation: indirect evidence can permit jury inference of publication)
- People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (explanation: authentication standards and role of inferences — admissibility vs. weight)
- R&B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 140 Cal.App.4th 327 (explanation: caution against wholesale disposition of claims via in limine rulings)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (explanation: interpretation of fee provisions and prevailing-party analyses)