Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD
D068523M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Medical Marijuana, Inc. (MMI) and HempMeds sued multiple defendants (including ProjectCBD.com, Martin Lee, and Aaron Cantu — "Project CBD defendants") for libel, trade libel, false light, negligence, and IIED arising from statements about plaintiffs' RSHO CBD product.
- Core facts pleaded: a May–June 2014 Facebook-based campaign (posts, reposts, and preliminary lab results) allegedly defamed plaintiffs; separately, Project CBD published an article titled "Hemp Oil Hustlers" on October 14, 2014 (updated Nov. 4, 2014) discussing contamination claims. The complaint does not allege that the Project CBD article was posted on Facebook or that Project CBD made the May–June Facebook posts.
- Project CBD moved under California’s anti-SLAPP statute to strike claims against them; the trial court granted the motion as to counts 2, 4, and 5 but denied it as to counts 1 (libel) and 3 (false light), finding plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing and were not limited public figures.
- On appeal, Project CBD challenged the denial as to counts 1 and 3, arguing (1) plaintiffs failed to show probability of prevailing and (2) plaintiffs are limited public figures (thus requiring actual malice).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial but on different grounds: it held the operative complaint, as pleaded, did not allege any conduct by the Project CBD defendants that forms the basis of the libel and false light counts (those counts specifically identify Facebook posts in May–June 2014), so there is no protected activity by Project CBD that could trigger anti-SLAPP analysis as to those two counts. The court remanded for further proceedings and noted Project CBD may demur or otherwise challenge pleading sufficiency in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a probability of prevailing on libel and false light against Project CBD under the anti-SLAPP second prong | The alleged false statements and the Project CBD article create triable issues of falsity/fault (and plaintiffs are not limited public figures) | Project CBD argued plaintiffs cannot show probability of prevailing because the alleged actionable statements for counts 1 & 3 were Facebook posts months before Project CBD's article | Court did not reach second-prong merits because complaint fails to allege any conduct by Project CBD that gives rise to counts 1 and 3; affirmed denial of anti-SLAPP on that ground and remanded for further proceedings |
| 2. Whether the anti-SLAPP statute was triggered (i.e., whether the claims arise from protected activity by Project CBD) | Counts incorporate general allegations about Project CBD’s article, so claims arise from Project CBD publication | Project CBD contended the libel/false light counts are based solely on May–June Facebook posts (not Project CBD's October article) and thus no protected activity by Project CBD supports those counts | Held that the specific allegations controlling the counts identify Facebook posts in May–June 2014 (by other defendants); Project CBD's October 2014 article is not pleaded as the basis for counts 1 and 3, so anti-SLAPP protections were not triggered for those counts |
| 3. Whether plaintiffs are limited public figures and thus must prove actual malice | Plaintiffs argued they are not limited public figures, so actual malice not required | Project CBD argued plaintiffs are limited public figures and must prove actual malice | Court did not decide — unnecessary because complaint fails to allege Project CBD conduct supporting the two counts; thus actual-malice question not resolved on appeal |
| 4. Appropriate remedy for pleading deficiency | Plaintiffs implicitly sought to proceed on existing pleading | Project CBD sought anti-SLAPP dismissal as to counts 1 and 3 | Court affirmed denial of anti-SLAPP motion (because anti-SLAPP not available when complaint pleads no conduct by moving defendant) and left defendants free to demur or otherwise challenge sufficiency in trial court; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies two-step anti-SLAPP analysis and burdens) (2016)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (anti-SLAPP focuses on defendant's act giving rise to liability) (2002)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (movant need only make a prima facie showing that challenged acts fall within §425.16 categories) (2006)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (first-step inquiry whether cause arises from protected activity) (2003)
- Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist., 209 Cal.App.4th 1228 (specific allegations control over inconsistent general allegations) (2012)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (elements of defamation: publication, falsity, defamation, unprivileged, damage) (2007)
- Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006 (words constituting libel must be specifically identified in complaint) (2005)